Comparison of the Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Radiography in the Diagnosis of Recurrent Caries: An in vitro Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 -Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

3 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

4 -Dentist.

Abstract

Background and Objective: Recurrent caries are one of the main reasons for replacing restorations. There are different methods for the detection of secondary caries. However, radiography is an excellent method for detection of carries which are not clinically obvious. Aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of recurrent caries.
Subjects and Methods: In this in vitro study, 52 healthy human premolars were used. Amalgam class 2 cavities were prepared on both proximal surfaces. Artificial caries lesions were made by a round 0.5 mm bur in half of the boxes. The other half were considered as control boxes. Then the teeth were embedded in acryl in a similar position to clinic. Digital and conventional radiographs were obtained. Images were evaluated by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists for recurrent carries. The resulting data was analyzed using Pearson Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact Tests.
Results: In the mesial surface, the specificity and sensitivity were 0.990 and 0.962 for digital radiography versus 0.928 and 0.920 for conventional radiography. In the distal surface, the specificity and sensitivity were 0.928 and 0.920 for digital radiography compare with 0.954 and 0.971 for conventional radiography.
Conclusion: The results of this in vitro study suggest that digital radiography technique is a safe method for the diagnosis of secondary caries with higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional radiography.
 

Keywords

References

1-Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 2000;31(3):165-79.
2-White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 241-53.
3-Yap AU, Khor E, Foo SH. Fluoride release and antibacterial properties of new-generation tooth-colored restoratives. Oper Dent 1999;24(5):297-305.
4-Hals E, Nernaes A. Histopathology of in vitro caries developing around silver amalgam fillings. Caries Res 1971;5(1):58-77.
5-Kidd EA. Secondary caries. Dent Update 1981;8(4):253-60.
6-Kidd EA, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. Diagnosis of secondary caries: a laboratory study. Br Dent J 1994;176(4):135-8,9.
7-Roberson TM, Heymann H, Sturdevant CM, Swift EJ, Sturdevant CM. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002. p. 168-205.
8-Gibbs SJ. Biological effects of radiation from dental radiography. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105(2):275-81.
9-Abesi F, Mirshekar A, Moudi E, Seyedmajidi M, Haghanifar S, Haghighat N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the detection of non-cavitated approximal dental caries. Iran J Radiol 2012;9(1):17-21.
10-Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater 1991;7(2):114-7.
11-Matteson SR, Phillips C, Kantor ML, Leinedecker T. The effect of lesion size, restorative material, and film speed on the detection of recurrent caries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;68(2):232-7.
12-Wong A, Monsour PA, Moule AJ, Basford KE. A comparison of Kodak Ultraspeed and Ektaspeed plus dental X-ray films for the detection of dental caries. Aust Dent J 2002;47(1):27-9.
13-Razmus TF, Williamson GF. Current oral and maxillofacial imaging. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996. p. 6-184.
14-White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. p. 77-328.
15-Anbiaee N, Mohassel AR, Imanimoghaddam M, Moazzami SM. A comparison of the accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(6):E025-32.
16-Pontual AA, de Melo DP, de Almeida SM, Boscolo FN, Haiter Neto F. Comparison of digital systems and conventional dental film for the detection of approximal enamel caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39(7):431-6.
17-Rockenbach MI, Veeck EB, da Costa NP. Detection of proximal caries in conventional and digital radiographs: an in vitro study. Stomatologija 2008;10(4):115-20.
18-Li G, Qu XM, Chen Y, Zhang J, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Diagnostic accuracy of proximal caries by digital radiographs: an in vivo and in vitro comparative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(3):463-7.
19-Paymani A, Talayeepour A, Nemati Anaraki S, Mehralizadeh S, Shirzad Delavar A, Talebi S. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital subtraction radiography in the diagnosis of different depths of Class III Caries (An Invitro Study). J Res Dent Sci 2011;8(3):120-9.
Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal
Volume 13, Issue 1 - Serial Number 88
March and April 2014
Pages 101-109

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 08 June 2013
  • Revise Date: 17 December 2013
  • Accept Date: 21 January 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics