Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth
- Author:
Luciano Andrei FRANCIO
1
;
Fernanda Evangelista SILVA
;
Claudia Scigliano VALERIO
;
Claudia Assunção e Alves CARDOSO
;
Wellington Corrêa JANSEN
;
Flávio Ricardo MANZI
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Biomedical and Dental Materials; Cone-beam Computed Tomography; Digital Radiography; X-ray diagnosis
- MeSH: Biomedical and Dental Materials; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Amalgam; Humans; Methods; Microscopy; Molar; Radiographic Image Enhancement; Radiography; ROC Curve; Tooth
- From:Imaging Science in Dentistry 2018;48(2):87-95
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: The present study aimed to evaluate which of the following imaging methods best assessed misfit at the tooth-restoration interface: (1) bitewing radiographs, both conventional and digital, performed using a photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) and a charge-coupled device (CCD) system; (2) panoramic radiographs, both conventional and digital; and (3) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty healthy human molars with class I cavities were selected and divided into 4 groups according to the restoration that was applied: composite resin, composite resin with liner material to simulate misfit, dental amalgam, and dental amalgam with liner material to simulate misfit. Radiography and tomography were performed using the various imaging methods, and the resulting images were analyzed by 2 calibrated radiologists. The true presence or absence of misfit corresponding to an area of radiolucency in regions subjacent to the esthetic and metal restorations was validated with microscopy. The data were analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the scores were compared using the Cohen kappa coefficient. RESULTS: For bitewing images, the digital systems (CCD and PSP) showed a higher area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for the evaluation of resin restorations, while the conventional images exhibited a larger AUROC for the evaluation of amalgam restorations. Conventional and digital panoramic radiographs did not yield good results for the evaluation of resin and amalgam restorations (P < .05). CBCT images exhibited good results for resin restorations (P>.05), but showed no discriminatory ability for amalgam restorations (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Bitewing radiographs (conventional or digital) should be the method of choice when assessing dental restoration misfit.
