DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mileman, P.
Right arrow Articles by Sanderink, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mileman, P.
Right arrow Articles by Sanderink, G.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2003) 32, 116-123
© 2003 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/58225203

RESEARCH

Randomized controlled trial of a computer-assisted learning program to improve caries detection from bitewing radiographs

PA Mileman*,1, WB van den Hout2 and GCH Sanderink1

1 Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), The Netherlands; 2 Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands

*Correspondence to: Phil Mileman, Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry in Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands; ; Email: phil.mileman{at}acta.nl

Received 10 June 2002; revised 4 January 2003; accepted 10 February 2003

Objectives: To investigate whether using a computer-assisted learning (CAL) calibration program improves the accuracy of dental students in caries detection from bitewing radiographs.

Methods: Dental students were assigned to an experimental (n=33) and control (n=34) group using a randomized block design. The experimental group used the CAL program with feedback to calibrate themselves against experts in radiographic caries detection and a histological gold standard of the actual clinical condition. Feedback was provided visually of the actual tooth surface condition and in the form of graphics showing diagnostic accuracy performance measures. Performance was tested before the program (for the control group) and after the program (for the experimental group) by assessing surfaces (n=56) from a new independent digital test set of evaluation radiographs for the presence, histologically, of dentine caries (n=23). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) method for summarizing true positive ratio (TPR) (sensitivity) and false positive ratio (FPR) (1-specificity) was used to analyse the dichotomous data. Differences between the control and experimental groups were tested for (a) the area under the SROC curve (Az) and (b) the TPR, FPR and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using the Mann–Whitney test (P<0.05).

Results: The mean TPR for dentine caries detection was 76.3% (SD 13.0%) for the experimental group and 66.9% (SD 14.8%) for the control group (P=0.005). Mean FPRs were similar (experimental 28.1% and control 28.7%; P>0.5). The area under the SROC curve Az was 0.832 for the experimental group and 0.773 for the control group (P=0.002). The mean DOR for dentine caries in the experimental group (12.4) was better than that in the control group (8.8) (P=0.003).

Conclusions: The CAL program does improve diagnostic performance. Improving the cognitive feedback provided by the program should be considered before implementation.

Keywords: randomized controlled trials; computer-assisted instruction; radiography, dental; diagnosis






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2003 by the British Institute of Radiology.