Extraoral imaging for proximal caries detection: Bitewings vs scanogram

Author(s):  
Emad A. Khan ◽  
Donald A. Tyndall ◽  
Daniel Caplan
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-193
Author(s):  
Ayşe Dündar ◽  
Mehmet Ertuğrul Çiftçi ◽  
Özlem İşman ◽  
Ali Murat Aktan

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samiya Subka ◽  
Helen Rodd ◽  
Zoann Nugent ◽  
Chris Deery

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 100025
Author(s):  
Eirini Stratigaki ◽  
Fabian N. Jost ◽  
Jan Kühnisch ◽  
Friederike Litzenburger ◽  
Adrian Lussi ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Prapayasatok ◽  
A Janhom ◽  
K Verochana ◽  
S Pramojanee

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janja Jan ◽  
Wan Zaripah Wan Bakar ◽  
Sapna M. Mathews ◽  
Linda O. Okoye ◽  
Benjamin R. Ehler ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 20200338
Author(s):  
Katrin Heck ◽  
Friederike Litzenburger ◽  
Verena Ullmann ◽  
Lea Hoffmann ◽  
Karl-Heinz Kunzelmann

Objectives: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two intraoral digital X-ray sensors—the charged-coupled device (CCD) and complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS)—for proximal caries detection in permanent molar and premolar teeth. Micro-CT served as the reference standard. Methods: 250 samples were mounted in three-dimensional (3D)-printed phantoms, and their proximal surfaces were evaluated by ICDAS criteria directly to create a balanced sample. Bitewing radiography was conducted using 3D-constructed X-ray phantoms with a CCD sensor at a 0.08 s and a CMOS sensor at 0.12 and 0.16 s exposure time. Two examiners determined the diagnostic decisions twice at appropriate intervals. Three diagnostic thresholds for sound surfaces and enamel and dentin caries were defined and presented in a cross-table. Sensitivity and specificity values and overall accuracy were calculated, and receiver operating curves were generated and compared. Reliability assessment was performed using linear weighted κ statistics. Results: The overall accuracies between the reference standard and different sensors and exposure times were 63.1% (CCD), 67.1% (CMOS sensor at 0.12 s) and 70.7% (CMOS sensor at 0.08 s). High specificity but low sensitivity values were found for all examination conditions at all thresholds. The area under the curve comparison values revealed no significant difference between sensor types and exposure times. Linear-weighted κ analysis revealed almost perfect agreement for all assessments. Conclusion: No significant difference was found for diagnostic performance of proximal caries detection between the different sensors and exposure times. The increased exposure time did not lead to a significant diagnostic benefit.


2020 ◽  
pp. 002203452097233
Author(s):  
F. Schwendicke ◽  
J.G. Rossi ◽  
G. Göstemeyer ◽  
K. Elhennawy ◽  
A.G. Cantu ◽  
...  

Artificial intelligence (AI) can assist dentists in image assessment, for example, caries detection. The wider health and cost impact of employing AI for dental diagnostics has not yet been evaluated. We compared the cost-effectiveness of proximal caries detection on bitewing radiographs with versus without AI. U-Net, a fully convolutional neural network, had been trained, validated, and tested on 3,293, 252, and 141 bitewing radiographs, respectively, on which 4 experienced dentists had marked carious lesions (reference test). Lesions were stratified for initial lesions (E1/E2/D1, presumed noncavitated, receiving caries infiltration if detected) and advanced lesions (D2/D3, presumed cavitated, receiving restorative care if detected). A Markov model was used to simulate the consequences of true- and false-positive and true- and false-negative detections, as well as the subsequent decisions over the lifetime of patients. A German mixed-payers perspective was adopted. Our health outcome was tooth retention years. Costs were measured in 2020 euro. Monte-Carlo microsimulations and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost-effectiveness acceptability at different willingness-to-pay thresholds were quantified. AI showed an accuracy of 0.80; dentists’ mean accuracy was significantly lower at 0.71 (minimum–maximum: 0.61–0.78, P < 0.05). AI was significantly more sensitive than dentists (0.75 vs. 0.36 [0.19–0.65]; P = 0.006), while its specificity was not significantly lower (0.83 vs. 0.91 [0.69–0.98]; P > 0.05). In the base-case scenario, AI was more effective (tooth retention for a mean 64 [2.5%–97.5%: 61–65] y) and less costly (298 [244–367] euro) than assessment without AI (62 [59–64] y; 322 [257–394] euro). The ICER was −13.9 euro/y (i.e., AI saved money at higher effectiveness). In the majority (>77%) of all cases, AI was less costly and more effective. Applying AI for caries detection is likely to be cost-effective, mainly as fewer lesions remain undetected. Notably, this cost-effectiveness requires dentists to manage detected early lesions nonrestoratively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document