Links to Exploration step
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Photostimulable Phosphor Plate Digital Radiography and Conventional Radiography for Detection of Artificial Cancellous Bone Defects</title><author><name sortKey="Bardal, Roghieh" sort="Bardal, Roghieh" uniqKey="Bardal R" first="Roghieh" last="Bardal">Roghieh Bardal</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF1">Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jahanihashemi, Hassan" sort="Jahanihashemi, Hassan" uniqKey="Jahanihashemi H" first="Hassan" last="Jahanihashemi">Hassan Jahanihashemi</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF2">Associate Professor, Department of Children Growth and Development Center, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mostafavi, Maryam" sort="Mostafavi, Maryam" uniqKey="Mostafavi M" first="Maryam" last="Mostafavi">Maryam Mostafavi</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF3">Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kalhor, Esmaeil" sort="Kalhor, Esmaeil" uniqKey="Kalhor E" first="Esmaeil" last="Kalhor">Esmaeil Kalhor</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF4">General Practitioner at Shahid Bolandian Health Center, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tofangchiha, Maryam" sort="Tofangchiha, Maryam" uniqKey="Tofangchiha M" first="Maryam" last="Tofangchiha">Maryam Tofangchiha</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF5">Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Dehghani, Mahdieh" sort="Dehghani, Mahdieh" uniqKey="Dehghani M" first="Mahdieh" last="Dehghani">Mahdieh Dehghani</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF6">Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yazd University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">27507990</idno><idno type="pmc">4977403</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4977403</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:4977403</idno><date when="2015">2015</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">003063</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">003063</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Photostimulable Phosphor Plate Digital Radiography and Conventional Radiography for Detection of Artificial Cancellous Bone Defects</title><author><name sortKey="Bardal, Roghieh" sort="Bardal, Roghieh" uniqKey="Bardal R" first="Roghieh" last="Bardal">Roghieh Bardal</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF1">Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jahanihashemi, Hassan" sort="Jahanihashemi, Hassan" uniqKey="Jahanihashemi H" first="Hassan" last="Jahanihashemi">Hassan Jahanihashemi</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF2">Associate Professor, Department of Children Growth and Development Center, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mostafavi, Maryam" sort="Mostafavi, Maryam" uniqKey="Mostafavi M" first="Maryam" last="Mostafavi">Maryam Mostafavi</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF3">Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kalhor, Esmaeil" sort="Kalhor, Esmaeil" uniqKey="Kalhor E" first="Esmaeil" last="Kalhor">Esmaeil Kalhor</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF4">General Practitioner at Shahid Bolandian Health Center, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Tofangchiha, Maryam" sort="Tofangchiha, Maryam" uniqKey="Tofangchiha M" first="Maryam" last="Tofangchiha">Maryam Tofangchiha</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF5">Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Dehghani, Mahdieh" sort="Dehghani, Mahdieh" uniqKey="Dehghani M" first="Mahdieh" last="Dehghani">Mahdieh Dehghani</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="AFF6">Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yazd University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran)</title><idno type="ISSN">1735-2150</idno><idno type="eISSN">2008-2185</idno><imprint><date when="2015">2015</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec><title>Objectives:</title><p>The optimal goal of radiography is to provide high-quality diagnostic images with the least patient radiation dose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) digital and film-based conventional radiography for detection of artificial cancellous bone defects.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods:</title><p>Five dry human mandibles were used in this study. The mandibles were placed inside a water bath made of plexiglass plates; then PSP and CBCT scans were obtained. The mandibles were cut by a coping saw in buccolingual dimension and oval defects measuring 6.1×6.1 mm, 3×6.1 mm and 4×4 mm were created by a milling machine in the spongy bone. After fixing the two parts together (buccal and lingual), radiographs were repeated. Presence or absence of defects on images was evaluated and recorded by the two observers. Using SPSS 16, compatibility level, sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis were determined for each observer.</p></sec><sec><title>Results:</title><p>The intraobserver agreement in all three imaging modalities was low to moderate (kappa≤0.613). The inter-observer agreement in all the three imaging modalities was moderate (kappa=0.406). The area under the curve (AUC) of the imaging modalities in each observation was not significantly different. The area under the curve based on defect size for the two observers was not significantly different either.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion:</title><p>Defects confined to spongy bone can be identified on film and PSP radiographs and CBCT scans. However, interpretation of PSP images and CBCT scans needs greater expertise and skills.</p></sec></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Parsell, De" uniqKey="Parsell D">DE Parsell</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gatewood, Rs" uniqKey="Gatewood R">RS Gatewood</name></author><author><name sortKey="Watts, Jd" uniqKey="Watts J">JD Watts</name></author><author><name sortKey="Streckfus, Cf" uniqKey="Streckfus C">CF. Streckfus</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kavadella, A" uniqKey="Kavadella A">A Kavadella</name></author><author><name sortKey="Karayiannis, A" uniqKey="Karayiannis A">A Karayiannis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nicopoulou Karayianni, K" uniqKey="Nicopoulou Karayianni K">K. Nicopoulou-Karayianni</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Schulze, D" uniqKey="Schulze D">D Schulze</name></author><author><name sortKey="Blessmann, M" uniqKey="Blessmann M">M Blessmann</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pohlenz, P" uniqKey="Pohlenz P">P Pohlenz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wagner, Kw" uniqKey="Wagner K">KW Wagner</name></author><author><name sortKey="Heiland, M" uniqKey="Heiland M">M. Heiland</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bender, Ib" uniqKey="Bender I">IB Bender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Seltzer, S" uniqKey="Seltzer S">S. Seltzer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bender, Ib" uniqKey="Bender I">IB Bender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Seltzer, S" uniqKey="Seltzer S">S. Seltzer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Katsarsky, Jw" uniqKey="Katsarsky J">JW Katsarsky</name></author><author><name sortKey="Levine, Ms" uniqKey="Levine M">MS Levine</name></author><author><name sortKey="Allen, Km" uniqKey="Allen K">KM Allen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hausmann, E" uniqKey="Hausmann E">E. Hausmann</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Schwartz, Sf" uniqKey="Schwartz S">SF Schwartz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Foster, Jk" uniqKey="Foster J">JK Foster</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ramadan, Ab" uniqKey="Ramadan A">AB Ramadan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mitchell, Df" uniqKey="Mitchell D">DF. Mitchell</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lofthag Hansen, S" uniqKey="Lofthag Hansen S">S Lofthag-Hansen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Huumonen, S" uniqKey="Huumonen S">S Huumonen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Grondahl, K" uniqKey="Grondahl K">K Grondahl</name></author><author><name sortKey="Grondahl, Hg" uniqKey="Grondahl H">HG. Grondahl</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Van Der Stelt, Pf" uniqKey="Van Der Stelt P">PF. van der Stelt</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Wallace, Ja" uniqKey="Wallace J">JA Wallace</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nair, Mk" uniqKey="Nair M">MK Nair</name></author><author><name sortKey="Colaco, Mf" uniqKey="Colaco M">MF Colaco</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kapa, Sf" uniqKey="Kapa S">SF. Kapa</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Stavropoulos, A" uniqKey="Stavropoulos A">A Stavropoulos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wenzel, A" uniqKey="Wenzel A">A. Wenzel</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ozen, T" uniqKey="Ozen T">T Ozen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kamburoglu, K" uniqKey="Kamburoglu K">K Kamburoglu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cebeci, Ar" uniqKey="Cebeci A">AR Cebeci</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yuksel, Sp" uniqKey="Yuksel S">SP Yuksel</name></author><author><name sortKey="Paksoy, Cs" uniqKey="Paksoy C">CS. Paksoy</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Barbat, J" uniqKey="Barbat J">J Barbat</name></author><author><name sortKey="Messer, Hh" uniqKey="Messer H">HH. Messer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kullendorff, B" uniqKey="Kullendorff B">B Kullendorff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nilsson, M" uniqKey="Nilsson M">M. Nilsson</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kullendorff, B" uniqKey="Kullendorff B">B Kullendorff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nilsson, M" uniqKey="Nilsson M">M Nilsson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rohlin, M" uniqKey="Rohlin M">M. Rohlin</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Yokota, Et" uniqKey="Yokota E">ET Yokota</name></author><author><name sortKey="Miles, Da" uniqKey="Miles D">DA Miles</name></author><author><name sortKey="Newton, Cw" uniqKey="Newton C">CW Newton</name></author><author><name sortKey="Brown, Ce" uniqKey="Brown C">CE Brown</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Mischkowski, Ra" uniqKey="Mischkowski R">RA Mischkowski</name></author><author><name sortKey="Scherer, P" uniqKey="Scherer P">P Scherer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ritter, L" uniqKey="Ritter L">L Ritter</name></author><author><name sortKey="Neugebauer, J" uniqKey="Neugebauer J">J Neugebauer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Keeve, E" uniqKey="Keeve E">E Keeve</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zoller, Je" uniqKey="Zoller J">JE. Zoller</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Noujeim, M" uniqKey="Noujeim M">M Noujeim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Prihoda, T" uniqKey="Prihoda T">T Prihoda</name></author><author><name sortKey="Langlais, R" uniqKey="Langlais R">R Langlais</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nummikoski, P" uniqKey="Nummikoski P">P. Nummikoski</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sogur, E" uniqKey="Sogur E">E Sogur</name></author><author><name sortKey="Baksi, Bg" uniqKey="Baksi B">BG Baksi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Grondahl, Hg" uniqKey="Grondahl H">HG Gröndahl</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lomcali, G" uniqKey="Lomcali G">G Lomcali</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sen, Bh" uniqKey="Sen B">BH. Sen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Nakata, K" uniqKey="Nakata K">K Nakata</name></author><author><name sortKey="Naitoh, M" uniqKey="Naitoh M">M Naitoh</name></author><author><name sortKey="Izumi, M" uniqKey="Izumi M">M Izumi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Inamoto, K" uniqKey="Inamoto K">K Inamoto</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ariji, E" uniqKey="Ariji E">E Ariji</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nakamura, H" uniqKey="Nakamura H">H. Nakamura</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kamburoglu, K" uniqKey="Kamburoglu K">K Kamburoglu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kilic, C" uniqKey="Kilic C">C Kilic</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ozen, T" uniqKey="Ozen T">T Ozen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Horasan, S" uniqKey="Horasan S">S. Horasan</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Stassinakis, A" uniqKey="Stassinakis A">A Stassinakis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zeyer, O" uniqKey="Zeyer O">O Zeyer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bragger, U" uniqKey="Bragger U">U. Bragger</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Christiansen, R" uniqKey="Christiansen R">R Christiansen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kirkevang, Ll" uniqKey="Kirkevang L">LL Kirkevang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gotfredsen, E" uniqKey="Gotfredsen E">E Gotfredsen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wenzel, A" uniqKey="Wenzel A">A. Wenzel</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jorge, Eg" uniqKey="Jorge E">EG Jorge</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tanomaru Filho, M" uniqKey="Tanomaru Filho M">M Tanomaru-Filho</name></author><author><name sortKey="Goncalves, M" uniqKey="Goncalves M">M Goncalves</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tanomaru, Jm" uniqKey="Tanomaru J">JM. Tanomaru</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pinsky, Hm" uniqKey="Pinsky H">HM Pinsky</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dyda, S" uniqKey="Dyda S">S Dyda</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pinsky, Rw" uniqKey="Pinsky R">RW Pinsky</name></author><author><name sortKey="Misch, Ka" uniqKey="Misch K">KA Misch</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sarment, Dp" uniqKey="Sarment D">DP. Sarment</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Gaia, Bf" uniqKey="Gaia B">BF Gaia</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sales, Ma" uniqKey="Sales M">MA Sales</name></author><author><name sortKey="Perrella, A" uniqKey="Perrella A">A Perrella</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fenyo Pereira, M" uniqKey="Fenyo Pereira M">M Fenyo-Pereira</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cavalcanti, Mg" uniqKey="Cavalcanti M">MG. Cavalcanti</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Marques, Ap" uniqKey="Marques A">AP Marques</name></author><author><name sortKey="Perrella, A" uniqKey="Perrella A">A Perrella</name></author><author><name sortKey="Arita, Es" uniqKey="Arita E">ES Arita</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pereira, Mf" uniqKey="Pereira M">MF Pereira</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cavalcanti Mde, G" uniqKey="Cavalcanti Mde G">G. Cavalcanti Mde</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Stassinakis, A" uniqKey="Stassinakis A">A Stassinakis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bragger, U" uniqKey="Bragger U">U Bragger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stojanovic, M" uniqKey="Stojanovic M">M Stojanovic</name></author><author><name sortKey="Burgin, W" uniqKey="Burgin W">W Burgin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lussi, A" uniqKey="Lussi A">A Lussi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Np" uniqKey="Lang N">NP. Lang</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaeppler, G" uniqKey="Kaeppler G">G Kaeppler</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dietz, K" uniqKey="Dietz K">K Dietz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Reinert, S" uniqKey="Reinert S">S. Reinert</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Shoha, Rr" uniqKey="Shoha R">RR Shoha</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dowson, J" uniqKey="Dowson J">J Dowson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Richards, Ag" uniqKey="Richards A">AG. Richards</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lequire, Ak" uniqKey="Lequire A">AK LeQuire</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cunningham, Cj" uniqKey="Cunningham C">CJ Cunningham</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pelleu, Gb" uniqKey="Pelleu G">GB Pelleu</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lee, Sj" uniqKey="Lee S">SJ LEE</name></author><author><name sortKey="Messer, Hh" uniqKey="Messer H">HH. Messer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Marmary, Y" uniqKey="Marmary Y">Y Marmary</name></author><author><name sortKey="Koter, T" uniqKey="Koter T">T Koter</name></author><author><name sortKey="Heling, I" uniqKey="Heling I">I. Heling</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">J Dent (Tehran)</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">J Dent (Tehran)</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JOD</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="pmc">JOD</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran)</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1735-2150</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2008-2185</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Tehran University of Medical Sciences</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">27507990</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">4977403</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">jod-12-797</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Original Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Photostimulable Phosphor Plate Digital Radiography and Conventional Radiography for Detection of Artificial Cancellous Bone Defects</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Bardal</surname><given-names>Roghieh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Jahanihashemi</surname><given-names>Hassan</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Mostafavi</surname><given-names>Maryam</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Kalhor</surname><given-names>Esmaeil</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Tofangchiha</surname><given-names>Maryam</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Dehghani</surname><given-names>Mahdieh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AFF6"><sup>6</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="C1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><aff id="AFF1"><label>1</label>Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</aff><aff id="AFF2"><label>2</label>Associate Professor, Department of Children Growth and Development Center, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</aff><aff id="AFF3"><label>3</label>Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran</aff><aff id="AFF4"><label>4</label>General Practitioner at Shahid Bolandian Health Center, Qazvin, Iran</aff><aff id="AFF5"><label>5</label>Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran</aff><aff id="AFF6"><label>6</label>Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yazd University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran</aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="C1"><label>*</label>Corresponding author: M. Dehghani, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Yazd University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran, <email>mdehghanit@yahoo.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>11</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>797</fpage><lpage>806</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>23</day><month>3</month><year>2015</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>2</day><month>10</month><year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright© Dental Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2015</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><sec><title>Objectives:</title><p>The optimal goal of radiography is to provide high-quality diagnostic images with the least patient radiation dose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) digital and film-based conventional radiography for detection of artificial cancellous bone defects.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods:</title><p>Five dry human mandibles were used in this study. The mandibles were placed inside a water bath made of plexiglass plates; then PSP and CBCT scans were obtained. The mandibles were cut by a coping saw in buccolingual dimension and oval defects measuring 6.1×6.1 mm, 3×6.1 mm and 4×4 mm were created by a milling machine in the spongy bone. After fixing the two parts together (buccal and lingual), radiographs were repeated. Presence or absence of defects on images was evaluated and recorded by the two observers. Using SPSS 16, compatibility level, sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis were determined for each observer.</p></sec><sec><title>Results:</title><p>The intraobserver agreement in all three imaging modalities was low to moderate (kappa≤0.613). The inter-observer agreement in all the three imaging modalities was moderate (kappa=0.406). The area under the curve (AUC) of the imaging modalities in each observation was not significantly different. The area under the curve based on defect size for the two observers was not significantly different either.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion:</title><p>Defects confined to spongy bone can be identified on film and PSP radiographs and CBCT scans. However, interpretation of PSP images and CBCT scans needs greater expertise and skills.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</kwd><kwd>Radiography, Dental, Digital</kwd><kwd>Bone and Bones</kwd><kwd>Dimensional Measurement Accuracy</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec sec-type="intro"><title>INTRODUCTION</title><p>The ability to detect changes in the cancellous bone structure, such as periapical and periodontal lesions, would be a significant clinical asset in general dentistry as well as in endodontics and periodontics [<xref rid="B1" ref-type="bibr">1</xref>]. Accurate diagnosis of subtle cancellous bone changes is desirable during the follow-up monitoring of peri-implant bone level [<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref>]. Bone changes with respect to inflammatory diseases require a significant loss of bone mineral content to be radiologically evident [<xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>]. Bender and Seltzer described the basic principles involved in detection of local resorptive bone lesions; the results indicated that because of the low mineral content of medullary bone, large resorptive lesions in this region could go undetected [<xref rid="B4" ref-type="bibr">4</xref>,<xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref>]. Furthermore, the cortices (particularly in the mandible) have a masking effect on lesions within the cancellous bone [<xref rid="B6" ref-type="bibr">6</xref>]. Different results have been obtained on the basis of anatomic and radiographic considerations with regard to detection of bone defects. Some studies on periapical lesions agreed with the theory of Bender and Seltzer [<xref rid="B4" ref-type="bibr">4</xref>,<xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref>,<xref rid="B7" ref-type="bibr">7</xref>–<xref rid="B9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref>]. Van der Stelt concluded that bone lesions are visible on radiographs only if the junction of the cortex and cancellous bone is eroded [<xref rid="B10" ref-type="bibr">10</xref>]. Digital radiography is an emerging area of diagnostic radiology with many potential benefits for dental practice [<xref rid="B11" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>]. Several studies have compared the accuracy of conventional and digital radiography and in most of them accuracy has been reported to be the same [<xref rid="B12" ref-type="bibr">12</xref>–<xref rid="B16" ref-type="bibr">16</xref>].</p><p>Yokota et al. showed that observers were somewhat better in detecting lesions confined to the lamina dura and cancellous bone when digital images were used as opposed to conventional radiographs [<xref rid="B17" ref-type="bibr">17</xref>]. Wallace et al. reported the accuracy of PSP images to be lower than that of films and reported the lack of image interpretation experience to be the reason [<xref rid="B11" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>]. Due to the physical nature of CBCT, it can hardly be compared with modern conventional CT in terms of low contrast resolution and noise level, but lesions affecting high-contrast structures could be detected with the same reliability as on CT scans [<xref rid="B18" ref-type="bibr">18</xref>]. Several studies have shown high ability of CBCT in detecting periapical lesions confined to cancellous bone and also lesions created on cortical bone [<xref rid="B9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref>,<xref rid="B12" ref-type="bibr">12</xref>,<xref rid="B13" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>,<xref rid="B18" ref-type="bibr">18</xref>–<xref rid="B22" ref-type="bibr">22</xref>].</p><p>We could not find a study about the ability of CBCT in detecting lesions not necessarily related to teeth and confined to cancellous bone. Because of discrepancies in the results of previous studies, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CBCT and intraoral PSP digital and film-based conventional radiography for detection of artificial cancellous bone defects.</p></sec><sec sec-type="materials|methods"><title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title><p>The defects were made on five dry human edentulous mandibles. The selected mandibles were intact without any cracks.</p><sec><title>Preparation of the control group:</title><p>The mandibles were sectioned into three segments using a diamond disk with 30 mm diameter in a handpiece; one segment consisted of the canine-to-canine area and two others consisted of the posterior areas of the mandible. E-speed film (Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) and PSP plates (Soredex-Onion, Helsinki, Finland) were used for conventional and digital radiographic techniques, respectively. The unit of imaging was de Götzen (Xgenus, Rome, Italy). Imaging was carried out by a long cone and the distance between the source and film was 31 cm. Each mandibular section was mounted by glue parallel to the long axis of a plexiglass box to ensure reproducible relationship among the X-ray unit, object, and film/sensor. The walls of the plexiglass box were 3mm thick, and the distance between the walls was 30 mm. The box was filled with water during the exposures to simulate soft tissue. For imaging of the total body of the posterior segments, two films were used. The central X-ray was directed perpendicular to receptors at vertical and horizontal angles. Exposure rate was determined according to a pilot study and the voltage was set at 8mA and 70 kVp for both receptors, with exposure time of 0.2 to 0.25 seconds for films and 0.12 to 0.16 seconds for PSP sensors with regard to bone density.</p><p>Immediately after exposing each film, PSP sensor was exposed with the same geometry (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Fig. 1</xref>). The body of the mandibles was marked with orthodontic wire to decrease the number of CBCT images; thus, CBCT images were divided into anterior and posterior regions similar to intra-oral images. The samples were fixed to the machine in a manner to direct the laser beam through the center of the long axis of the box. Imaging was carried out with voltage, current and time of 54 to 58 kVp, 6 mA and 12 seconds, respectively.</p><fig id="F1" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 1.</label><caption><p>Imaging of posterior segment by E-speed film</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JOD-12-797-g001"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><title>Preparation of defects:</title><p>Each osseous segment was sectioned into two buccal and lingual segments using a fine saw in a manner to leave more cancellous bone on the buccal segment. Defects were produced artificially within the osseous bone using a round bur; #V bur was used to produce round defects measuring 1.6 mm in diameter and oval defects measuring approximately 1.6×3 mm. Also, #XI bur was used to randomly create defects measuring approximately 4 mm in diameter in the anterior and posterior regions (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Fig. 2</xref>). The lesion sizes were approximate due to high porosity of the dry bone, especially in the posterior region, and brittleness of the bony trabeculae. Of course, the approximate sizes of the defects had no negative effect on the diagnosis due to great differences in defect sizes. Subsequent to creation of the defects, the lingual plate was fixed adjacent to the buccal plate and images were captured similar to the method used for the control group.</p><fig id="F2" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 2.</label><caption><p>Sample of created defects on the buccal part after bone sectioning</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JOD-12-797-g002"></graphic></fig><p>After CBCT imaging, all the remaining cancellous bone of lingual plates was removed with an excavator and intraoral radiographs were repeated exactly the same as the former method.</p></sec><sec><title>Visualization of images:</title><p>The images were observed by two observers: one oral and maxillofacial radiologist and one oral and maxillofacial radiology post-graduate student in a dimly lit room. Intraoral films were set on the opaque frame made by pasteboard. The digital images were observed on a Samsung monitor (SyncMaster, MB 1793, Samsung, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea). The observers were allowed to change the density, contrast and magnification of the images. The CT images were submitted to the observers on a CD and visualized on a 17-inch monitor of a Dell laptop, with a resolution of 1440×900. There was no time limitation for viewing the images. Images were viewed again by each observer after two weeks.</p></sec><sec sec-type="discussion"><title>Image interpretation:</title><p>The observers interpreted the absence or presence of defects with different sizes using a 5-point rating scale: Point 1: Definitely present, Point 2: Probably present, Point 3: Unsure, Point 4: Probably absent, Point 5: Definitely absent (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">Fig. 3</xref>).</p><fig id="F3" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 3.</label><caption><p>PSP radiograph of created defects: (A) oval and (B) larger round defects</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JOD-12-797-g003"></graphic></fig><p>In order to detect the defects on CBCT scans, first the image in the axial view was placed on the middle section and the sagittal axis of the image was placed in the direction of the sagittal axis of the software.</p><p>In the next step, the image in the sagittal view was evaluated by moving the mouse from the buccal bone towards the lingual bone; if the lesion was observed, the junction of the sagittal and coronal planes was placed at the center of the lesion and the lesion was evaluated on the coronal view in the next step. If the lesion was visualized on the coronal view, its presence was confirmed. The process was repeated for each quadrant. In the anterior views, adjustment of the sagittal and coronal planes of the bone on the axial view was separately carried out for each quadrant (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Fig. 4</xref>).</p><fig id="F4" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 4.</label><caption><p>White arrow shows a large round, black arrow shows a small round and diamond arrows show oval artificial lesions in the coronal and sagittal sections of CBCT scans.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JOD-12-797-g004"></graphic></fig></sec><sec sec-type="methods"><title>Data analysis:</title><p>SPSS 16 was used for data analysis. Kappa coefficient was calculated to determine intra- and inter-observer agreement levels.</p><p>Agreement level was defined as follows: 0.0–0.200: poor, 0.201–0.400: fair, 0.401–0.600: moderate, 0.601–0.800: high, 0.801–1.0: excellent.</p><p>To determine the agreement level for the absence or presence of defects irrespective of the imaging modality, sensitivity and specificity of each technique, scores 1 and 2 of responses (definitely and probably present) were considered as the presence of defect and the three other responses were considered as the absence of defect, i.e. the 5-point rating scale changed into a 2-point rating scale. Z-test was used to compare sensitivity and specificity values. The accuracy of the methods was determined by ROC analysis and AUC.</p></sec></sec><sec sec-type="results"><title>RESULTS</title><p>To determine the agreement level, a 2-point rating scale was used and only absence or presence of defects was evaluated because the agreement level based on a 5-point rating scale was low.</p><p>Intra-observer agreement for both observers irrespective of the imaging modality was moderate (kappa≤0.544). Inter-observer agreement for the first observation was also moderate (kappa=0.406). Intra- and inter-observer agreements with regard to imaging modality are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>. According to <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>, intra-observer agreements were moderate to high for E-speed film and CBCT scans (0.525≤kappa≤0.613). Intra-and inter-observer agreements were the lowest for PSP digital radiography (kappa≤0.377).</p><table-wrap id="T1" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Kappa coefficients with regard to imaging modalities</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="3" colspan="1"></th><th colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><bold>Imaging modality</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="3" align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>E-speed film</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>PSP</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>CBCT</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><bold>Intra-observer agreement</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">First observer</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.609</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.377</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.610</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Second observer</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.525</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.235</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.613</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><bold>Inter-observer agreement</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">First observation</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.488</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.201</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.308</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Sensitivity of CBCT and PSP digital radiography was significantly higher than that of E-speed film-based radiography (P<0.01). However, there were no significant differences between CBCT and PSP digital radiography (P=0.12). There were no significant differences in the specificity of E-speed film, PSP and CBCT. Sensitivity and specificity of both observers with regard to imaging modality are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref>. Sensitivity and specificity of imaging modalities were higher for the first observer and this difference was statistically significant for PSP (P<0.001) and CBCT (P<0.01).</p><table-wrap id="T2" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 2.</label><caption><p>Sensitivity and specificity of first and second observers with regard to imaging modality</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="3" colspan="1"></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><bold>E-speed film</bold></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><bold>PSP</bold></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><bold>CBCT</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="6" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Sensitivity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Specificity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Sensitivity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Specificity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Sensitivity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Specificity (%)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>First observer</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">81.7</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">67</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">90</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">55</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">91</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Second observer</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">77.5</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">64</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">55.7</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">25</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">80</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">57</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The first observer's data are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref> (the second observer's data are not shown here).</p><table-wrap id="T3" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 3.</label><caption><p>Sensitivity and specificity of first observer with regard to created defects’ size, group and imaging modality</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th colspan="7" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><bold>Imaging modality</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="3" colspan="1"></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><bold>E-speed film</bold></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><bold>PSP</bold></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><bold>CBCT</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Sensitivity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Specificity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Sensitivity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Specificity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Sensitivity (%)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Specificity (%)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> <bold>Size I<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN3"><sup>*</sup></xref></bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Group I <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN1">†</xref></bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">68</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">85</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">70</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">85</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Group II <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN2">††</xref></bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">60</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">90</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> <bold>Size II<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN3"><sup>**</sup></xref></bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Group I</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">60</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">60</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">80</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Group II</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">60</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">99</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">55</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">100</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"> <bold>Size III<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN3"><sup>***</sup></xref></bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Group I</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">90</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">80</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Group II</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">75</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">100</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="TFN1"><label>†:</label><p>Before removal of junctional bone</p></fn><fn id="TFN2"><label>††:</label><p>After removal of junctional bone</p></fn><fn id="TFN3"><label>*</label><p>Artificial defects measuring 1.6×1.6 mm<sup>2</sup></p></fn><fn id="TFN4"><label>**</label><p>Artificial defects measuring 1.6×3 mm<sup>2</sup></p></fn><fn id="TFN5"><label>***</label><p>Artificial defects measuring 4×4 mm<sup>2</sup></p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref> shows that removal of the cancellous bone remaining between the created defects and cortical bone (junctional bone) increased the specificity of PSP digital and film-based conventional radiographs. The highest sensitivity was related to CBCT scans in all defect sizes.</p><p>The accuracy [(true positive + true negative) ÷ total observations] of both observers was measured and compared with the AUC and the related confidence intervals. The AUC was significantly higher for the first observer, [0.815 (CI: 0.783–0.847) vs. 0.687 (CI: 0.648–0.726), Graph 1)]. According to <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref>, this difference was not significant for E-speed films, [0.794 (CI: 0.736–0.853) vs. 0.746 (CI: 0.685–0.811)].</p><table-wrap id="T4" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 4.</label><caption><p>Area under the ROC curve for the two observers with regard to imaging modality</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="3" colspan="1"></th><th colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><bold>Imaging method</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="3" align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>PSP</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>CBCT</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>E-speed film</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="4" align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>AUC (CI)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>AUC (CI)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>AUC (CI)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>First observer</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.794 (0.736,0.853)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.797 (0.740,0.854)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.838 (0.784,0.892)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Second observer</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.746 (0.685,0.811)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.650 (0.581,0.720)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.673 (0.604,0.742)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref> shows that accuracy of CBCT for the first observer (AUC=0.838) and E-speed film for the second observer (AUC=0.748) was the highest but at a confidence level of 95% there were no significant differences among the results of E-speed film, PSP and CBCT.</p><p>According to <xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">Table 5</xref>, there were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of imaging modalities among different sizes of defects or among different sizes of defects in each imaging modality.</p><table-wrap id="T5" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 5.</label><caption><p>Area under the ROC curve for the first observer with regard to imaging modality and artificial defects’ size</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="3" colspan="1"></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Size I</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Size II</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>Size III</bold></th></tr><tr><th colspan="3" align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1"><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>AUC (CI)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>AUC (CI)</bold></th><th align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>AUC (CI)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>E-speed film</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.774 (0.879,0.668)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.783 (0.885,0.740)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.832 (0.925,0.738)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>PSP</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.836 (0.928,0.745)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.777 (0.884,0.581)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.775 (0.876,0.674)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>CBCT</bold></td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.824 (9.921,0.728)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.832 (0.928,0.736)</td><td align="center" valign="top" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.860 (0.949,0.771)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec sec-type="discussion"><title>DISCUSSION</title><p>Diagnosis of cancellous bone defects is important in both the process of periodontal and periapical diseases and also diseases not necessarily affecting teeth, such as inflammatory or tumoral lesions, which are prevalent in older age groups.</p><p>Therefore, edentulous mandibles were chosen to evaluate cancellous bone defects in this study. The size of the lesions was larger than 1.5 mm due to the limitation of radiography in identifying undersized lesions according to previous studies [<xref rid="B23" ref-type="bibr">23</xref>,<xref rid="B24" ref-type="bibr">24</xref>] and also due to the fact that pathological changes have not been reported to be small in clinical studies [<xref rid="B25" ref-type="bibr">25</xref>].</p><p>The method described by Stavropoulos and Wenzel [<xref rid="B12" ref-type="bibr">12</xref>] was used for bone sectioning. Barbat and Messer [<xref rid="B14" ref-type="bibr">14</xref>] reported high success of this method for creating artificial periapical lesions confined to cancellous bone.</p><p>The method described by Kullendroff and Nilsson [<xref rid="B15" ref-type="bibr">15</xref>] and Kullendroff et al. [<xref rid="B16" ref-type="bibr">16</xref>] was used to simulate soft tissue. Due to limitations in previous methods for CBCT imaging, we placed the mandibles in a water bath instead of placing a water bath between the mandible and the X-ray source.</p><p>Pinsky et al, [<xref rid="B26" ref-type="bibr">26</xref>], Gaia et al, [<xref rid="B27" ref-type="bibr">27</xref>] and Marques et al, [<xref rid="B28" ref-type="bibr">28</xref>] also used water baths for 3D imaging in their studies. Accuracy of the CBCT and PSP was significantly different between the two observers. It can be concluded that interpretation of the CBCT scans requires more experience than the two other types of radiographs. Noujeim et al, who evaluated periodontal lesions in cancellous bone also believe that in order to better interpret CBCT scans, observers should be trained [<xref rid="B19" ref-type="bibr">19</xref>]. Pinsky et al. created lesions in cortical bone and reported that interpreting CBCT images was not observer-dependent [<xref rid="B26" ref-type="bibr">26</xref>].</p><p>Discrepancy in the results might be attributed to the type of lesions. They also believed that the same results might not be obtained in cancellous bone of patients. There were no significant differences in the accuracy of E-speed film, PSP and CBCT for each observer (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref>). Noujeim et al, in their study on periodontal lesions showed that CBCT displayed periodontal lesions significantly better than film, which was inconsistent with the results of the current study [<xref rid="B19" ref-type="bibr">19</xref>].</p><p>In a comparative study by Kullendroff et al, on the accuracy of E-speed films and PSP digital radiographs for detection of periapical lesions, there were no significant differences between these methods [<xref rid="B16" ref-type="bibr">16</xref>].</p><p>There were no significant differences between the accuracy of conventional X-ray images and radiovisiography in the diagnosis of lesions larger than 1.25 mm in a study by Stassinakis et al, consistent with the results of our study shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">Table 5</xref> [<xref rid="B29" ref-type="bibr">29</xref>].</p><p>Among the imaging modalities, the intra-observer agreement was the highest for CBCT (kappa≥0.610) and inter-observer agreement for the first observation was the highest for E-speed film (kappa=0.480) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>). Gaia et al. created lesions with similar sizes in cortical bone, and obtained high agreement levels for CBCT images (kappa=0.869)[<xref rid="B27" ref-type="bibr">27</xref>].</p><p>Kaeppler et al. created peri-implant intraosseous defects and obtained high inter- and intra-observer agreements (kappa≤0.850) with lesions smaller than those created in our study (0.7–1.4 mm in diameter) with E-speed films and PSP [<xref rid="B30" ref-type="bibr">30</xref>]. The CBCT densities vary in different bone densities, which is particularly true with the use of edentulous dry mandibles since trabeculations are extensive and only contrast with air, making the interpretation of the images more difficult; therefore, the agreement level and accuracy in our study were relatively low.</p><p>The lowest intra- and inter-observer agreement was observed with PSP (kappa≤0.377). Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of the modalities showed that their sensitivity was higher than their specificity (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref>), probably because the observers were not blind to the presence of defects (since they were directly asked to detect intraosseous defects) and thus, bone marrows were misinterpreted as defects, and this was inevitable.</p><p>For both observers, PSP and CBCT scans had the highest sensitivity; CBCT had the highest specificity, and the lowest specificity belonged to PSP (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref>). These results and low agreement level for PSP radiographs indicate that: 1. Interpretation of PSP images requires more expertise similar to CBCT scans. 2. Changes in density and contrast might increase positive cases, especially false ones. In a study by Katsarsky et al, sensitivity of PSP was lower than that of films because brightness and contrast of PSP images were not allowed to change [<xref rid="B6" ref-type="bibr">6</xref>].</p><p>Evaluation of the effect of defect size on sensitivity, specificity and agreement level indicated that increasing the size of defects resulted in an increase in sensitivity in round defects. The effect of defect location on their detection was not evaluated because of limited number of samples. Larger defects in the anterior regions might be detected easier because of smaller bone marrow spaces. Shoha et al. detected experimental peri-apical lesions on radiographs at premolar areas but not at molar areas [<xref rid="B31" ref-type="bibr">31</xref>].</p><p>Removal of cancellous bone between the lesion and cortical bone (junctional bone) increased the specificity of E-speed films and PSP comparable to that of CBCT; this increase was greater for E-speed films, especially for large round defects (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref>). However, this increase was not statistically significant in any of the sizes. In some studies, only a few defects were visible [<xref rid="B1" ref-type="bibr">1</xref>,<xref rid="B11" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>, <xref rid="B13" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>] while in some other studies most defects were visible without erosion of junctional bone [<xref rid="B14" ref-type="bibr">14</xref>–<xref rid="B16" ref-type="bibr">16</xref>,<xref rid="B32" ref-type="bibr">32</xref>,<xref rid="B33" ref-type="bibr">33</xref>].</p><p>Some of the inconsisten-cies in the results of studies may be due to varying amounts of junctional bone in the experimental defects.</p><p>Considering the overall diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of imaging modalities, it can be concluded that lesions confined to cancellous bone are identifiable on films, PSP radiographs and CBCT scans. Barbat and Messer discussed that not detecting the lesions confined to cancellous bone may be due to the methodology involving creation of lesions through apical openings in extraction sockets by use of various files and burs. By section-ing the mandible buccolingually, the surrounding trabecular bone can be removed to form a “hollow”-type lesion, thereby mimicking the characteristics of a naturally occurring lesion [<xref rid="B14" ref-type="bibr">14</xref>]. Similar findings were obtained in an in vivo study by Marmary et al on periapical lesions confined to cancellous bone [<xref rid="B34" ref-type="bibr">34</xref>]. However, they did not discuss whether these findings had anything to do with the loss of bone trabeculae close to the cortical bone or not. An ex vivo study by Jorge et al, on dog's teeth yielded contradictory results. In their study, small lesions were not identifiable on indirect digital images [<xref rid="B25" ref-type="bibr">25</xref>]. Probably acute phase of the created lesions led to failed detection of lesions because at least 20–40% of mineral content of bone should be lost so that the lesion can be detected on intraoral radiographs.</p><p>The results of the current and similar studies in which defects were created by bur in dry bone may differ from the in vivo situation because of well-defined defects and many other confounding factors.</p></sec><sec sec-type="conclusion"><title>CONCLUSION</title><p>Defects confined to spongy bone can be identified on film and PSP radiographs and CBCT scans. However, interpretation of PSP images and CBCT scans needs greater expertise and skills.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>REFERENCES</title><ref id="B1"><label>1-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Parsell</surname><given-names>DE</given-names></name><name><surname>Gatewood</surname><given-names>RS</given-names></name><name><surname>Watts</surname><given-names>JD</given-names></name><name><surname>Streckfus</surname><given-names>CF.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Sensitivity of various radiographic methods for detection of oral cancellous bone lesions</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>.
<year>1998</year><month>10</month>;
<volume>86</volume>(<issue>4</issue>):
<fpage>498</fpage>–
<lpage>502</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9798239</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kavadella</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Karayiannis</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Nicopoulou-Karayianni</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Detectability of experimental peri-implant cancellous bone lesions using conventional and direct digital radiography</article-title>.
<source>Aust Dent J</source>.
<year>2006</year><month>6</month>;
<volume>51</volume>(
<issue>2</issue>):
<fpage>180</fpage>–
<lpage>6</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16848268</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schulze</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Blessmann</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Pohlenz</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Wagner</surname><given-names>KW</given-names></name><name><surname>Heiland</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Diagnostic criteria for the detection of mandibular osteomyelitis using cone-beam computed tomography</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2006</year><month>7</month>;
<volume>35</volume>(
<issue>4</issue>):
<fpage>232</fpage>–
<lpage>5</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16798917</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bender</surname><given-names>IB</given-names></name><name><surname>Seltzer</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone: II. 1961</article-title>.
<source>J Endod</source>.
<year>2003</year><month>11</month>;
<volume>29</volume>(
<issue>11</issue>):
<fpage>707</fpage>–
<lpage>12</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14651275</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bender</surname><given-names>IB</given-names></name><name><surname>Seltzer</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone: I. 1961</article-title>.
<source>J Endod</source>.
<year>2003</year><month>11</month>;
<volume>29</volume>(
<issue>11</issue>):
<fpage>702</fpage>–
<lpage>6</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14651274</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Katsarsky</surname><given-names>JW</given-names></name><name><surname>Levine</surname><given-names>MS</given-names></name><name><surname>Allen</surname><given-names>KM</given-names></name><name><surname>Hausmann</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Detection of experimentally induced lesions in subtraction images of cancellous alveolar bone</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol</source>.
<year>1994</year><month>6</month>;
<volume>77</volume>(
<issue>6</issue>):
<fpage>674</fpage>–
<lpage>7</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8065737</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schwartz</surname><given-names>SF</given-names></name><name><surname>Foster</surname><given-names>JK</given-names><suffix>Jr.</suffix></name></person-group><article-title>Roentgenographic interpretation of experimentally produced bony lesions. I</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol</source>.
<year>1971</year><month>10</month>;
<volume>32</volume>(
<issue>4</issue>):
<fpage>606</fpage>–
<lpage>12</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">5285698</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ramadan</surname><given-names>AB</given-names></name><name><surname>Mitchell</surname><given-names>DF.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A roentgenographic study of experimental bone destruction</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol</source>.
<year>1962</year><month>8</month>;
<volume>15</volume>:
<fpage>934</fpage>–
<lpage>43</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14490054</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lofthag-Hansen</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Huumonen</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Grondahl</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Grondahl</surname><given-names>HG.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>.
<year>2007</year><month>1</month>;
<volume>103</volume>(
<issue>1</issue>):
<fpage>114</fpage>–
<lpage>9</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17178504</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>van der Stelt</surname><given-names>PF.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Experimentally produced bone lesions</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol</source>.
<year>1985</year><month>3</month>;
<volume>59</volume>(
<issue>3</issue>):
<fpage>306</fpage>–
<lpage>12</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">3856825</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wallace</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Nair</surname><given-names>MK</given-names></name><name><surname>Colaco</surname><given-names>MF</given-names></name><name><surname>Kapa</surname><given-names>SF.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>.
<year>2001</year><month>7</month>;
<volume>92</volume>(
<issue>1</issue>):
<fpage>93</fpage>–
<lpage>7</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11458252</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stavropoulos</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Wenzel</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws</article-title>.
<source>Clin Oral Investig</source>.
<year>2007</year><month>3</month>;
<volume>11</volume>(
<issue>1</issue>):
<fpage>101</fpage>–
<lpage>6</lpage>.
</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ozen</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Kamburoglu</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Cebeci</surname><given-names>AR</given-names></name><name><surname>Yuksel</surname><given-names>SP</given-names></name><name><surname>Paksoy</surname><given-names>CS.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using 2 different dental cone-beam computerized tomography units, an intraoral digital sensor, and conventional film</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>.
<year>2009</year><month>3</month>;
<volume>107</volume>(
<issue>3</issue>):
<fpage>426</fpage>–
<lpage>32</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18996725</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Barbat</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Messer</surname><given-names>HH.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Detectability of artificial periapical lesions using direct digital and conventional radiography</article-title>.
<source>J Endod</source>.
<year>1998</year><month>12</month>;
<volume>24</volume>(
<issue>12</issue>):
<fpage>837</fpage>–
<lpage>42</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10023266</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kullendorff</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Nilsson</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions. II. Effects on diagnostic accuracy after application of image processing</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>. <year>1996</year><month>11</month>;<volume>82</volume> (<issue>5</issue>):<fpage>585</fpage>–<lpage>9</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8936525</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kullendorff</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Nilsson</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Rohlin</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: overall comparison between conventional and direct digital radiography</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>.
<year>1996</year><month>9</month>;
<volume>82</volume>(
<issue>3</issue>):
<fpage>344</fpage>–
<lpage>50</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8884837</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yokota</surname><given-names>ET</given-names></name><name><surname>Miles</surname><given-names>DA</given-names></name><name><surname>Newton</surname><given-names>CW</given-names></name><name><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>CE</given-names><suffix>Jr.</suffix></name></person-group><article-title>Interpretation of periapical lesions using RadioVisioGraphy</article-title>.
<source>J Endod</source>.
<year>1994</year><month>10</month>;
<volume>20</volume>(
<issue>10</issue>):
<fpage>490</fpage>–
<lpage>4</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7714421</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mischkowski</surname><given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Scherer</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Ritter</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Neugebauer</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Keeve</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Zoller</surname><given-names>JE.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Diagnostic quality of multiplanar reformations obtained with a newly developed cone beam device for maxillofacial imaging</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2008</year><month>1</month>;
<volume>37</volume>(
<issue>1</issue>):
<fpage>1</fpage>–
<lpage>9</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18195248</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Noujeim</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Prihoda</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Langlais</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Nummikoski</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Evaluation of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography in the detection of simulated interradicular bone lesions</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2009</year><month>3</month>;
<volume>38</volume>(
<issue>3</issue>):
<fpage>156</fpage>–
<lpage>62</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19225086</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sogur</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Baksi</surname><given-names>BG</given-names></name><name><surname>Gröndahl</surname><given-names>HG</given-names></name><name><surname>Lomcali</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Sen</surname><given-names>BH.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Detectability of chemically induced periapical lesions by limited cone beam computed tomography, intra-oral digital and conventional film radiography</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2009</year><month>10</month>;
<volume>38</volume>(
<issue>7</issue>):
<fpage>458</fpage>–
<lpage>64</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19767516</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nakata</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Naitoh</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Izumi</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Inamoto</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Ariji</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Nakamura</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effectiveness of dental computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of periradicular lesion of each root of a multirooted tooth: a case report</article-title>.
<source>J Endod</source>.
<year>2006</year><month>6</month>;
<volume>32</volume>(
<issue>6</issue>):
<fpage>583</fpage>–
<lpage>7</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16728257</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kamburoglu</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Kilic</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Ozen</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Horasan</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of chemically created periapical lesion measurements using limited cone beam computed tomography</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2010</year><month>2</month>;
<volume>39</volume>(
<issue>2</issue>):
<fpage>95</fpage>–
<lpage>9</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20100921</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stassinakis</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Zeyer</surname><given-names>O</given-names></name><name><surname>Bragger</surname><given-names>U.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>[The diagnosis of bone lesions with conventional xray images and with a direct digital procedure (RVG). An in-vitro study</article-title>.
<source>RadioVisioGraphy]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed</source>.
<year>1995</year>;
<volume>105</volume>(
<issue>12</issue>):
<fpage>1539</fpage>–
<lpage>45</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8553039</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Christiansen</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Kirkevang</surname><given-names>LL</given-names></name><name><surname>Gotfredsen</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Wenzel</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the periapical bone defect 1 week and 12 months after root-end resection</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2009</year><month>12</month>;
<volume>38</volume>(
<issue>8</issue>):
<fpage>531</fpage>–
<lpage>6</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20026710</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jorge</surname><given-names>EG</given-names></name><name><surname>Tanomaru-Filho</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Goncalves</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Tanomaru</surname><given-names>JM.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Detection of periapical lesion development by conventional radiography or computed tomography</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod</source>.
<year>2008</year><month>7</month>;
<volume>106</volume>(
<issue>1</issue>):
<fpage>e56</fpage>–
<lpage>61</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18585613</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pinsky</surname><given-names>HM</given-names></name><name><surname>Dyda</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Pinsky</surname><given-names>RW</given-names></name><name><surname>Misch</surname><given-names>KA</given-names></name><name><surname>Sarment</surname><given-names>DP.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2006</year><month>11</month>;
<volume>35</volume>(
<issue>6</issue>):
<fpage>410</fpage>–
<lpage>6</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17082331</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gaia</surname><given-names>BF</given-names></name><name><surname>Sales</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Perrella</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Fenyo-Pereira</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Cavalcanti</surname><given-names>MG.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography for identification of simulated bone lesions</article-title>.
<source>Braz Oral Res</source>.
<year>2011</year><season>Jul-Aug</season>;
<volume>25</volume>(
<issue>4</issue>):
<fpage>362</fpage>–
<lpage>8</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21860924</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Marques</surname><given-names>AP</given-names></name><name><surname>Perrella</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Arita</surname><given-names>ES</given-names></name><name><surname>Pereira</surname><given-names>MF</given-names></name><name><surname>Cavalcanti Mde</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Assessment of simulated mandibular condyle bone lesions by cone beam computed tomography</article-title>.
<source>Braz Oral Res</source>.
<year>2010</year><season>Oct-Dec</season>;
<volume>24</volume>(
<issue>4</issue>):
<fpage>467</fpage>–
<lpage>74</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21180970</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stassinakis</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Bragger</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Stojanovic</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Burgin</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Lussi</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Lang</surname><given-names>NP.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy in detecting bone lesions in vitro with conventional and subtracted direct digital imaging</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>1995</year><month>11</month>;
<volume>24</volume>(
<issue>4</issue>):
<fpage>232</fpage>–
<lpage>7</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9161167</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaeppler</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Dietz</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Reinert</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>2007</year><month>2</month>;
<volume>36</volume>(
<issue>2</issue>):
<fpage>75</fpage>–
<lpage>9</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17403883</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shoha</surname><given-names>RR</given-names></name><name><surname>Dowson</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Richards</surname><given-names>AG.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Radiographic interpretation of experimentally produced bony lesions</article-title>.
<source>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol</source>.
<year>1974</year><month>8</month>;
<volume>38</volume>(
<issue>2</issue>):
<fpage>294</fpage>–
<lpage>303</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">4528700</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>LeQuire</surname><given-names>AK</given-names></name><name><surname>Cunningham</surname><given-names>CJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Pelleu</surname><given-names>GB</given-names><suffix>Jr.</suffix></name></person-group><article-title>Radiographic interpretation of experimentally produced osseous lesions of the human mandible</article-title>.
<source>J Endod</source>.
<year>1977</year><month>7</month>;
<volume>3</volume>(
<issue>7</issue>):
<fpage>274</fpage>–
<lpage>6</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">269221</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>LEE</surname><given-names>SJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Messer</surname><given-names>HH.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Radiographic appearance of artificially prepared periapical lesions confined to cancellous bone</article-title>.
<source>Int Endod J</source><year>1989</year>;
<volume>19</volume>:
<fpage>64</fpage>–
<lpage>72</lpage>.
</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34-</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Marmary</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Koter</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Heling</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The effect of periapical rarefying osteitis on cortical and cancellous bone. A study comparing conventional radiographs with computed tomography</article-title>.
<source>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</source>.
<year>1999</year>;
<volume>28</volume>(
<issue>5</issue>):
<fpage>267</fpage>–
<lpage>71</lpage>.
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10490743</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></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 003063 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003063 | 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=
|texte=
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |