Diagnostic consistency for observing endodontic files in digital radiographs displayed on different electronic devices.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20210903-00396
- Author:
Rui LIU
1
;
Gang LI
2
Author Information
1. Department of Endodontics, Capital Medical University School of Stomatology, Beijing 100050, China.
2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Dental Instruments;
Dental Pulp Cavity/diagnostic imaging*;
Electronics;
Humans;
Molar;
Observer Variation;
Root Canal Preparation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2022;57(4):384-389
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic consistency of working lengths by observing endodontic files in root canals and periapical subtle structures in digital intraoral radiographs presented in two smartphones, a tablet and a laptop computer. Methods: A dried human skull embedded in an acrylic compound was used for exposing radiographs of the upper and lower second premolars and first molars with two endodontic files (Kerr files size 10 and 15) positioned to the full length of the roots or 1.5 mm short of apexes. A total of 100 radiographs were taken for each of the file sizes. Five observers were asked to assess all the 200 digital radiographs according to a 5-category scale in smartphone A (HUAWEI P9 Plus), smartphjone B (Apple iPhone 7), tablet (Apple iPad 2018) and laptop computer (Lenovo Thinkpad E480), respectively. The gold standard for receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was determined with the endodontic Kerr file size 20. A total of 150 roots with files were radiographed, 75 of which with files reaching the radiographic apexes of the respective roots and 75 of which with files 1.5 mm short of the radiographic apexes for each endodontic file size. Results from ROC analysis was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and independent sample t test. Results: For the Kerr file size 10, the area under the ROC curve for laptop, tablet and two smartphones were 0.891±0.037, 0.869±0.037, 0.870±0.017 and 0.849±0.037, while for the Kerr file size 15 the ROC values were 0.957±0.02, 0.961±0.02, 0.961±0.01 and 0.961±0.02, respectively. There were no significant differences for diagnostic accuracy for observing endodontic file positions among digital radiographs presented in the two smartphones, one tablet and one laptop devices (endodontic file size 10: F=1.39, P=0.281; endodontic file size 15: F=0.05, P=0.985). A significant difference was found in the diagnostic accuracy of endodontic file positions between size 10 and 15 files in different display devices (t=-10.65, P<0.001). Conclusions: There was a high diagnostic consistency in the determination of working length and periapical subtle structures of roots by observing digital radiographs displayed on smartphones, tablet and laptop computer.
