Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Oral Radiology
Published in: Oral Radiology 2/2017

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Accuracy of digitally enhanced images compared with unprocessed digital images in the detection of external root resorption

Authors: Zahra Ghoncheh, Farzaneh Afkhami, Mohammad Javad Kharazi Fard, Rasa Ebrahimi Sorkhabi, Ulkem Aydin

Published in: Oral Radiology | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study was for comparing the accuracy of processed digital images (reverse-contrast and colorization) with that of unprocessed digital images in detection of external root resorption (ERR).

Methods

Eighty single-rooted human teeth were selected for this study. Mild, moderate, and severe ERR were simulated on 20 teeth each, and 20 were left untreated. Digital images using the paralleling technique were made, and three types of images were finally produced: unprocessed, reverse-contrast, and colorized. Three experienced dentists examined the images. The Wilson confidence intervals were calculated to analyze the diagnostic data. The kappa statistic was used to determine interobserver agreement.

Results

For unprocessed images, the rate of correct classification of mild and moderate to severe ERR was 88.3 and 80.0 %, respectively. The corresponding rate for reverse-contrast images was 81.7 and 80.0 %, and that for colorized images was 93.3 and 80.0 %, respectively. The sensitivity of unprocessed images in the detection of mild and moderate to severe ERR was 0.93 and 0.84, respectively. The corresponding sensitivity for reverse-contrast images was 0.83 and 0.84, and that for colorized images was 0.93 and 0.84, respectively. The specificity of unprocessed, reverse-contrast, and colorized images was 0.90, 0.92, and 1.00, respectively. The kappa coefficient for interobserver agreement was 0.86 for unprocessed images, 0.88 for reverse-contrast images, and 0.89 for colorized images. The difference between the sensitivity and specificity of unprocessed, reverse-contrast, and colorized images was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The three techniques were of similar and desirable accuracy in detection of ERR.
Literature
1.
Bartok RI, Văideanu T, Dimitriu B, Vârlan CM, Suciu I, Podoleanu D. External radicular resorption: selected cases and review of the literature. J Med Life. 2012;5:145–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 5th ed. London: Mosby; 2004. p. 335.
3.
Ono E, Medici Filho E, Faig Leite H, Tanaka JL, De Moraes ME, De Melo Castilho JC. Evaluation of simulated external root resorptions with digital radiography and digital subtraction radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139:324–33.CrossRef
4.
Westphalen VP, Gomes de Moraes I, Westphalen FH, Martins WD, Souza PH. Conventional and digital radiographic methods in the detection of simulated external root resorptions: a comparative study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:233–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Westphalen VP, Moraes IG, Westphalen FH. Efficacy of conventional and digital radiographic imaging methods for diagnosis of simulated external root resorption. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12:108–12.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dalili Z, Taramsari M, Mousavi Mehr SZ, Salamat F. Diagnostic value of two modes of cone-beam computed tomography in evaluation of simulated external root resorption: an in vitro study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42:19–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Ren H, Chen J, Deng F, Zheng L, Liu X, Dong Y. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography for detecting simulated apical root resorption. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:189–95.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Shokri A, Mortazavi H, Salemi F, Javadian A, Bakhtiari H, Matlabi H. Diagnosis of simulated external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, PSP, and CBCT: a comparison study. Biomed J. 2013;36:18–22.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF. Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent. 1997;25:215–24.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Alpöz E, Soğur E, Baksi Akdeniz BG. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:490–4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Platin E, Nair M. A comparison of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film and the Siemens Sidexis digital imaging system for caries detection using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85:113–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kositbowornchai S, Basiw M, Promwang Y, Moragorn H, Sooksuntisakoonchai N. Accuracy of diagnosing occlusal caries using enhanced digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:236–40.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kullendorff B, Nilsson M. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions. II. Effects on diagnostic accuracy after application of image processing. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996;82:585–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zangooei Booshehry M, Davari A, Ezoddini Ardakani F, Rashidi Nejad MR. Efficacy of application of pseudocolor filters in the detection of interproximal caries. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2010;4:79–82.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Shi XQ, Li G. Detection accuracy of approximal caries by black-and-white and color-coded digital radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:433–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Tofangchiha M, Bakhshi M, Shariati M, Valizadeh S, Adel M, Sobouti F. Detection of vertical root fractures using digitally enhanced images: reverse-contrast and colorization. Dent Traumatol. 2012;28:478–82.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Unal GC, Aydin U, Orhan H. The effect of different image processing features in a digital radiography system on the clarity of the endodontic file tips. GU Dishek Fak Derg. 2005;22:13–9 (In Turkish).
18.
Li G, Engström PE, Welander U. Measurement accuracy of marginal bone level in digital radiographs with and without color coding. Acta Odontol Scand. 2007;65:254–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Scaf G, Morihisa O, Loffredo Lde C. Comparison between inverted and unprocessed digitized radiographic imaging in periodontal bone loss measurements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15:492–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Bortoluzzi EA, Souza EM, Reis JM, Esberard RM, Tanomaru-Filho M. Fracture strength of bovine incisors after intra-radicular treatment with MTA in an experimental immature tooth model. Int Endod J. 2007;40:684–91.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz Oral Res. 2005;19:11–6.PubMed
22.
Caldas Mde P, Ramos-Perez FM, de Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F. Comparative evaluation among different materials to replace soft tissue in oral radiology studies. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18:264–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Verdonschot EH, Kuijpers JM, Polder BJ, De Leng-Worm MH, Bronkhorst EM. Effects of digital grey-scale modification on the diagnosis of small approximal carious lesions. J Dent. 1992;20:44–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Molon RSd, Verzola MHA, Paquier TM, Morais-Camillo JAND, Trindade-Suedam IK, Loffredo LDCM, et al. Detection of simulated periodontal bone defects using digital images. An in vitro study. Arch Clin Exp Surg. 2014;3:220–5.CrossRef
26.
Mistak EJ, Loushine RJ, Primack PD, West LA, Runyan DA. Interpretation of periapical lesions comparing conventional, direct digital, and telephonically transmitted radiographic images. J Endod. 1998;24:262–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
De Araujo EA, Castilho JC, Medici Filho E, de Moraes ME. Comparison of direct digital and conventional imaging with Ekta Speed Plus and INSIGHT films for the detection of approximal caries. Am J Dent. 2005;18:241–4.PubMed
28.
Wenzel A, Fejerskov O. Validity of diagnosis of questionable caries lesions in occlusal surfaces of extracted third molars. Caries Res. 1992;26:188–94.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Accuracy of digitally enhanced images compared with unprocessed digital images in the detection of external root resorption
Authors
Zahra Ghoncheh
Farzaneh Afkhami
Mohammad Javad Kharazi Fard
Rasa Ebrahimi Sorkhabi
Ulkem Aydin
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Oral Radiology / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0911-6028
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9674
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-016-0258-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Oral Radiology 2/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Factors affecting observer agreement in morphological evaluation of mandibular cortical bone on panoramic radiographs

Case Report

Endodontic and microsurgical treatments of maxillary lateral incisor dens invaginatus in combination with cone-beam-computed tomography fusion imaging

Case Report

Pseudohypoparathyroidism diagnosed in adulthood: maxillofacial clinical and radiographic findings

Original Article

Value of additional axial imaging in magnetic resonance imaging of the temporomandibular joint to identify extra-articular diseases

Review Article

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical signs of temporomandibular joint disorders: a 10-year research update review

Original Article

Estimation of prognosis of tongue cancer using tumor depth and margin shape obtained from ultrasonography