Performance of five different displays in the detection of artificial incipient and recurrent caries-like lesions

Publication date: Available online 15 November 2017
Source:Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
Author(s): Shawn Chancy Countryman, Saulo Leonardo Sousa Melo, Manuella Dias Furtado Belem, Francisco Haiter-Neto, Marcos A. Vargas, Veeratrishul Allareddy
ObjectivesTo assess whether auto-calibrating medical-grade monitors perform better than off-the-shelf monitors and tablet computers in detecting artificial incipient and recurrent caries-like lesions.Materials & Methods60 extracted teeth (30 premolars and 30 molars) were selected. All molars received class II amalgam and composite restorations. A 7mm² area on the crowns of half of the teeth was demineralized. Phantoms consisting of four teeth were created. Three observers using a five-point scale evaluated digital periapical radiographs for the presence of caries on five displays: two auto-calibrating medical-grade monitors, two tablets, and an off-the-shelf monitor. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and ROC data were calculated and verified through ANOVA and Tukey tests. Cohen's kappa assessed observer agreements.ResultsIntraobserver agreement ranged from 0.347-0.612 (molars) and 0.617-0.811 (premolars). Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.239-0.559 (molars) and 0.657-0.858 (premolars). The performances of tablets and the off-the-shelf monitor were similar to medical monitors when the same tooth groups were compared. Medical monitors presented fewer statistically significant differences when different lesions where compared within the same display and restorative material.ConclusionEvaluations of similar lesions were not significantly different between the 3 types of displays. However, the auto-calibrating medical-grade monitors performed better when incipient and recurrent lesions were compared.



from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2yRmlWB
via IFTTT