DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mileman, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Hout, W. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mileman, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Hout, W. B.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 31, Issue 1 7-14, Copyright © 2002 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparing the accuracy of Dutch dentists and dental students in the radiographic diagnosis of dentinal caries

P. A. Mileman and W. B. van den Hout
Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Phil.Mileman@acta.nl

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dental students using bitewing radiographs for the diagnosis of dentinal caries with that of general dental practitioners and to establish a bench mark for testing for improvement in diagnostic performance. METHODS: Fourth year dental students (n=259) viewed bitewing radiographs of 105 proximal tooth surfaces. According to a micro-radiography "gold standard" 45 surfaces had dentine caries. The students were asked to diagnose presence and absence of dentine caries from which, under supervision, they calculated their sensitivity (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR). The students binary diagnostic data was compared with the historical data from a random sample of Dutch dentists (n=273). The Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve method was used to analyse the data. The two groups were tested for differences in (a) diagnostic odds ratio and (b) the area under the SROC curve. RESULTS: The students mean TPR for dentine caries diagnosis was 67.2% (s.d. 11.8%) and the FPR was 8.3% (s.d. 8.4%). The corresponding values for dentists were: TPR 54.0% (s.d. 14.1%) and FPR 3.1% (s.d. 4.5%). Significantly more dentists (85%) than students (72%, P<0.001) had a diagnostic odds ratio > or =21. The area under the SROC curve (Az) was 0.8194 for students and 0.8140 for dentists (P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: In our study (i) the students had a higher TPR but also a higher FPR than the dental practitioners, (ii) their overall performance (Az) was similar but (iii) for a clinically relevant population the dental practitioners would out-perform the students in diagnostic performance.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
S Kositbowornchai, M Basiw, Y Promwang, H Moragorn, and N Sooksuntisakoonchai
Accuracy of diagnosing occlusal caries using enhanced digital images
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2004; 33(4): 236 - 240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
P. Mileman, W. van den Hout, and G. Sanderink
Randomized controlled trial of a computer-assisted learning program to improve caries detection from bitewing radiographs
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2003; 32(2): 116 - 123.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2002 by the British Institute of Radiology.