Advertisement

The effects of orthodontic materials on the accuracy of periapical radiography-based caries detection

  • Ozlem IsmanEmail author
  • Seda Kayar
Original Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the influence of orthodontic materials on the assessment of proximal caries using periapical radiography.

Methods

Forty non-cavitated and restoration-free human premolars and molars ranging from sound teeth to teeth containing various grades of lesions were embedded with approximal contacts into silicon blocks. Periapical radiographs were obtained using combinations of two orthodontic materials (three bracket and two archwires). Images were obtained using a Planmeca ProX (Planmeca®, Helsinki, Finland). Two observers assessed the images. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was computed using an intraclass correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the true positive value, true negative value, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC).

Results

Intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.483 to 0.768. Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.383 to 0.718. The AUC, sensitivity and specificity were 0.792, 71.23% and 87.10% in the control group (without bracketing), respectively. The highest area under the curve (AUC) value (0.792) was obtained from the without bracket group. The lowest AUC value (0.659) belonged to the stainless steel bracket and steel wire group. A decrease in the AUC values was observed for the control group (without bracketing) compared to the stainless steel bracket and steel wire group (P = 0.040).

Conclusions

The addition of a stainless steel bracket with stainless steel wire combination makes it difficult to the diagnose the interproximal tooth caries by periapical radiography.

Keywords

Caries Periapical radiography Oral diagnosis Orthodontic brackets 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ozlem Isman and Seda Kayar declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. The study protocol was approved by the Local Research Ethics Committee of Gaziantep University Faculty of Medicine Ethic Committee. This article does not contain any studies with animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

There is no need of informed consent for this type of manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    van Dorp CS, Exterkate RA, ten Cate JM. The effect of dental probing on subsequent enamel demineralization. ASDC J Dent Child. 1988;55(5):343–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bader JD, Shugars DA. A systematic review of the performance of a laser fluorescence device for detecting caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135(10):1413–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodrigues JA, Hug I, Diniz MB, Lussi A. Performance of fluorescence methods, radiographic examination and ICDAS II on occlusal surfaces in vitro. Caries Res. 2008;42(4):297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chong MJ, Seow WK, Purdie DM, Cheng E, Wan V. Visual-tactile examination compared with conventional radiography, digital radiography, and Diagnodent in the diagnosis of occlusal occult caries in extracted premolars. Pediatr Dent. 2003;25(4):341–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodrigues JA, Diniz MB, Josgrilberg EB, Cordeiro RC. In vitro comparison of laser fluorescence performance with visual examination for detection of occlusal caries in permanent and primary molars. Lasers Med Sci. 2009;24(4):501–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Senel B, Kamburoglu K, Ucok O, Yuksel SP, Ozen T, Avsever H. Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(8):501–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shi XQ, Li G. Detection accuracy of approximal caries by black-and-white and color-coded digital radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(3):433–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goel A, Chawla HS, Gauba K, Goyal A. Comparison of validity of DIAGNOdent with conventional methods for detection of occlusal caries in primary molars using the histological gold standard: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2009;27(4):227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li G, Qu XM, Chen Y, Zhang J, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Diagnostic accuracy of proximal caries by digital radiographs: an in vivo and in vitro comparative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109(3):463–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anbiaee N, Mohassel AR, Imanimoghaddam M, Moazzami SM. A comparison of the accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2010;11(6):E025–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    dos Anjos PA, de Melo DP, Pontual ML, de Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F. Comparative study of a wireless digital system and 2 PSP digital systems on proximal caries detection and pixel values. Gen Dent. 2013;61(6):56–60.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang ZL, Qu XM, Li G, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. The detection accuracies for proximal caries by cone-beam computerized tomography, film, and phosphor plates. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(1):103–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hintze H, Wenzel A. Clinically undetected dental caries assessed by bitewing screening in children with little caries experience. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994;23(1):19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wenzel A. Digital radiography and caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27(1):3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders MA, Hoyjberg C, Chu CB, Leggitt VL, Kim JS. Common orthodontic appliances cause artifacts that degrade the diagnostic quality of CBCT images. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2007;35(12):850–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology 1. Radiology. 2003;229(1):3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Junqueira RB, Verner FS, Campos CN, Devito KL, do Carmo AM. Detection of vertical root fractures in the presence of intracanal metallic post: a comparison between periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2013;39(12):1620–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tufekci E, Dixon JS, Gunsolley J, Lindauer SJ. Prevalence of white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(2):206–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salineiro FC, Gialain IO, Kobayashi-Velasco S, Pannuti CM, Cavalcanti MG. Detection of furcation involvement using periapical radiography and 2 cone-beam computed tomography imaging protocols with and without a metallic post: an animal study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2017;47(1):17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boas FE, Fleischmann D. Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology. 2011;259(3):894–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth by a cone beam computed tomography scan. J Endod. 2009;35(5):719–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sousa Melo SL, Belem MDF, Prieto LT, Tabchoury CPM, Haiter-Neto F. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and digital intraoral radiography performance in the detection of artificially induced recurrent caries-like lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124(3):306–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Struffert T, Dorfler A, Kalender WA. Metal artifact reduction for clipping and coiling in interventional C-arm CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(4):634–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Valizadeh S, Tavakkoli MA, Karimi Vasigh H, Azizi Z, Zarrabian T. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system: comparison with intraoral periapical radiography in proximal caries detection. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2012;6(1):1–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benn DK. Radiographic caries diagnosis and monitoring. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994;23(2):69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kang BC, Farman AG, Scarfe WC, Goldsmith LJ. Observer differentiation of proximal enamel mechanical defects versus natural proximal dental caries with computed dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996;82(4):459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hintze H, Wenzel A. Diagnostic outcome of methods frequently used for caries validation A comparison of clinical examination, radiography and histology following hemisectioning and serial tooth sectioning. Caries Res. 2003;37(2):115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vocational High School of Health ServiceGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey
  2. 2.Okmeydanı Oral and Dental Health Hospital IstanbulIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations