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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peker, I
Right arrow Articles by Altunkaynak, B
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peker, I
Right arrow Articles by Altunkaynak, B
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2007) 36, 495-499
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/13319800

RESEARCH

Film tomography compared with film and digital bitewing radiography for proximal caries detection

I Peker*,1, M Toraman Alkurt1 and B Altunkaynak2

1 Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey; 2 Department of Statistics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

*Correspondence to: Dr Ilkay Peker, Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, 06510 Emek/Ankara, Türkie; Email: drdtilkay{at}gmail.com

Received 2 October 2006; revised 13 December 2006; accepted 21 December 2006

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of conventional tomography for proximal caries detection compared with conventional bitewing and digital intraoral radiography.

Methods: In this study, 48 extracted human posterior permanent teeth were used. Conventional bitewing radiographs, digital intraoral radiographs and conventional tomograms were obtained of the teeth. The presence or absence of caries was scored according to a five-point scale by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists. True caries depth was determined by histological examination. The diagnostic accuracy of each radiographic system was assessed by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The mean of areas under the ROC curve (Az) was analysed by pairwise comparison of ROC curve. The interobserver agreement was evaluated using a t-test.

Results: The statistical analysis of Az scores has shown no significant difference for three imaging modalities (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between interobserver agreement (P>0.05).

Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of conventional tomograms is comparable to that of conventional bitewing and digital intraoral radiographs for proximal caries detection.

Keywords: dental caries; dental radiography; tomography; receiver operating characteristic curve






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.