EdenteV2, Pmc, Corpus, bibRecord, 002280

Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions

Identifieur interne : 002280 ( Pmc/Corpus ); précédent : 002279; suivant : 002281

Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions

Auteurs : M. Hede Iu ; M. B Ciu ; G. B Ciu ; O. Nackaerts ; R. Jacobs

Source :

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology [ 0250-832X ] ; 2012.

RBID : PMC:3608374

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of different cone beam CTs (CBCTs) and the influence of field of view (FOV) in diagnosing simulated periapical lesions.

Methods

6 formalin-fixed lateral mandibular specimens from pigs were used for creating 20 standardized periapical bone defects. 18 roots were selected for the control group. Three CBCT devices [Accuitomo 3D® (Morita, Kyoto, Japan), NewTom 3G (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy) and Scanora® (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland)] and three FOVs (NewTom 3G® FOV 6, 9 and 12 inches) were used to scan the mandible. Five observers assessed the images, using a five-point probability scale for the presence of lesions. Specificity, sensitivity and areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated.

Results

Sensitivity ranged from 72% to 80%. Specificity ranged from 60% to 77%. A difference in scoring between Scanora and the other two devices existed only in the control group. ROC analysis for different FOVs showed a decreased sensitivity with an increasing FOV, but this difference was not significant.

Conclusion

In the control group, there was a difference between the CBCT devices regarding their specificity. FOV size did not show any difference in diagnostic performance. In cases in which conventional radiographic methods in combination with clinical evaluation are not sufficient, CBCT may be the method of choice to assess periapical pathology. CBCT examinations should be complementary to a clinical examination and FOV adaptation can be utilized to keep the dose to the patient as low as possible.

Url:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608374

DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/19322177
PubMed: 22554990
PubMed Central: 3608374

Links to Exploration step

PMC:3608374

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions</title>
<author><name sortKey="Hede Iu, M" sort="Hede Iu, M" uniqKey="Hede Iu M" first="M" last="Hede Iu">M. Hede Iu</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="B Ciu, M" sort="B Ciu, M" uniqKey="B Ciu M" first="M" last="B Ciu">M. B Ciu</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="B Ciu, G" sort="B Ciu, G" uniqKey="B Ciu G" first="G" last="B Ciu">G. B Ciu</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Nackaerts, O" sort="Nackaerts, O" uniqKey="Nackaerts O" first="O" last="Nackaerts">O. Nackaerts</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Oral Imaging Center, Oral Health Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jacobs, R" sort="Jacobs, R" uniqKey="Jacobs R" first="R" last="Jacobs">R. Jacobs</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Oral Imaging Center, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno>
<idno type="pmid">22554990</idno>
<idno type="pmc">3608374</idno>
<idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608374</idno>
<idno type="RBID">PMC:3608374</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1259/dmfr/19322177</idno>
<date when="2012">2012</date>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">002280</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">002280</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions</title>
<author><name sortKey="Hede Iu, M" sort="Hede Iu, M" uniqKey="Hede Iu M" first="M" last="Hede Iu">M. Hede Iu</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="B Ciu, M" sort="B Ciu, M" uniqKey="B Ciu M" first="M" last="B Ciu">M. B Ciu</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="B Ciu, G" sort="B Ciu, G" uniqKey="B Ciu G" first="G" last="B Ciu">G. B Ciu</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Nackaerts, O" sort="Nackaerts, O" uniqKey="Nackaerts O" first="O" last="Nackaerts">O. Nackaerts</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Oral Imaging Center, Oral Health Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jacobs, R" sort="Jacobs, R" uniqKey="Jacobs R" first="R" last="Jacobs">R. Jacobs</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Oral Imaging Center, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</addr-line>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">Dentomaxillofacial Radiology</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0250-832X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1476-542X</idno>
<imprint><date when="2012">2012</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec><title>Objective</title>
<p>We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of different cone beam CTs (CBCTs) and the influence of field of view (FOV) in diagnosing simulated periapical lesions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Methods</title>
<p>6 formalin-fixed lateral mandibular specimens from pigs were used for creating 20 standardized periapical bone defects. 18 roots were selected for the control group. Three CBCT devices [Accuitomo 3D® (Morita, Kyoto, Japan), NewTom 3G (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy) and Scanora® (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland)] and three FOVs (NewTom 3G® FOV 6, 9 and 12 inches) were used to scan the mandible. Five observers assessed the images, using a five-point probability scale for the presence of lesions. Specificity, sensitivity and areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Results</title>
<p>Sensitivity ranged from 72% to 80%. Specificity ranged from 60% to 77%. A difference in scoring between Scanora and the other two devices existed only in the control group. ROC analysis for different FOVs showed a decreased sensitivity with an increasing FOV, but this difference was not significant.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Conclusion</title>
<p>In the control group, there was a difference between the CBCT devices regarding their specificity. FOV size did not show any difference in diagnostic performance. In cases in which conventional radiographic methods in combination with clinical evaluation are not sufficient, CBCT may be the method of choice to assess periapical pathology. CBCT examinations should be complementary to a clinical examination and FOV adaptation can be utilized to keep the dose to the patient as low as possible.</p>
</sec>
</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-comment>The publisher of this article does not allow downloading of the full text in XML form.</pmc-comment>
  <front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Dentomaxillofac Radiol</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Dentomaxillofac Radiol</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">dmfr</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">dmf</journal-id>
<journal-title-group><journal-title>Dentomaxillofacial Radiology</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0250-832X</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1476-542X</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>The British Institute of Radiology.</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>131–151 Great Titchfield Street, London W1W 5BB</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">22554990</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="pmc">3608374</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">D11158</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1259/dmfr/19322177</article-id>
<article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group><article-title>Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions</article-title>
<alt-title alt-title-type="running-head">CBCT for apical lesion detection</alt-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Hedeşiu</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Băciuţ</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1">*</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Băciuţ</surname>
<given-names>G</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Nackaerts</surname>
<given-names>O</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Jacobs</surname>
<given-names>R</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5">5</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><collab>The SEDENTEXCT Consortium</collab>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="aff1"><label>1</label>
<addr-line>Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff2"><label>2</label>
<addr-line>Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff3"><label>3</label>
<addr-line>Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff4"><label>4</label>
<addr-line>Oral Imaging Center, Oral Health Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff5"><label>5</label>
<addr-line>Oral Imaging Center, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</addr-line>
</aff>
<author-notes><corresp id="cor1">Dr Mihaela Băciuţ, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania/37 Cardinal Iuliu Hossu, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. E-mail: <email>mbaciut@yahoo.com</email>
</corresp>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>10</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>41</volume>
<issue>7</issue>
<fpage>548</fpage>
<lpage>552</lpage>
<history><date date-type="received"><day>9</day>
<month>5</month>
<year>2011</year>
</date>
<date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day>
<month>11</month>
<year>2011</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted"><year>2011</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions><copyright-statement>© 2012 The British Institute of Radiology</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2012</copyright-year>
</permissions>
<abstract><sec><title>Objective</title>
<p>We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of different cone beam CTs (CBCTs) and the influence of field of view (FOV) in diagnosing simulated periapical lesions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Methods</title>
<p>6 formalin-fixed lateral mandibular specimens from pigs were used for creating 20 standardized periapical bone defects. 18 roots were selected for the control group. Three CBCT devices [Accuitomo 3D® (Morita, Kyoto, Japan), NewTom 3G (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy) and Scanora® (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland)] and three FOVs (NewTom 3G® FOV 6, 9 and 12 inches) were used to scan the mandible. Five observers assessed the images, using a five-point probability scale for the presence of lesions. Specificity, sensitivity and areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Results</title>
<p>Sensitivity ranged from 72% to 80%. Specificity ranged from 60% to 77%. A difference in scoring between Scanora and the other two devices existed only in the control group. ROC analysis for different FOVs showed a decreased sensitivity with an increasing FOV, but this difference was not significant.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Conclusion</title>
<p>In the control group, there was a difference between the CBCT devices regarding their specificity. FOV size did not show any difference in diagnostic performance. In cases in which conventional radiographic methods in combination with clinical evaluation are not sufficient, CBCT may be the method of choice to assess periapical pathology. CBCT examinations should be complementary to a clinical examination and FOV adaptation can be utilized to keep the dose to the patient as low as possible.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group><kwd> cone beam computed tomography</kwd>
<kwd>apical lesion</kwd>
<kwd><italic>in vitro</italic>
</kwd>
<kwd>sensitivity</kwd>
<kwd>field of view</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
</pmc>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Pmc/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002280 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002280 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    Pmc
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     PMC:3608374
   |texte=   Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions
}}

Pour générer des pages wiki

HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/RBID.i   -Sk "pubmed:22554990" \
       | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd   \
       | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions

Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions

Source :

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

Pour générer des pages wiki