EVALUATION OF OPTIMAL PARAMETERS OF A INTRAORAL X-RAY DEVICE FOR DETECTING SIMULATED DENTAL CARIES CAVITIES: AN IN VITRO STUDY

Đại Phong Lâm, Phan Chí Nhân Đoàn

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: The ultimate aim was to propose the optimal exposure parameters for detecting simulated cavities of each size. Subjects and Methods: Six standardized maxillary premolars were selected. Two radiographic assessment rounds were performed using three exposure modes of the RXDC intraoral X-ray device: En60 (60 kVp, 8 mA), En63 (63 kVp, 4 mA), and En65 (65 kVp, 4 mA). In the first round, intact teeth were radiographed. In the second round, simulated cavities with diameters of 1.0 mm and 0.5 mm were created using a veneer-marking bur. A total of 36 radiographs were obtained. Two clinicians with more than 10 years of experience evaluated the images four times. Their assessments were compared with the actual presence of cavities to determine the level of agreement using Cohen’s kappa statistic. Results: For cavities with a diameter of 1.0 mm, kappa values ranged from 0.833 to 1.000, indicating strong to almost perfect agreement. For cavities with a diameter of 0.5 mm, kappa values ranged from 0.333 to 1.000, with considerable variability between assessment rounds and between the two clinicians. Conclusion: For larger cavities (1.0 mm diameter), the En60 mode (60 kVp, 8 mA) provided high diagnostic accuracy while minimizing radiation exposure to the patient. For smaller cavities (0.5 mm diameter), no optimal exposure parameter could be determined using the periapical X-ray machine.

Article Details

References

1. Altun O, Ozen DC, Dedeoglu N, Duman SB, Eser G, Topaloglu E, et al. In-vitro Diagnosis of Approximal Caries in Teeth Periapical Radiography with Different Exposure Parameters. European Journal of Therapeutics. 2023;29(4):780-90. doi:10.58600/eurjther1900
2. Demirci M, Tuncer S, Yuceokur AA. Prevalence of caries on individual tooth surfaces and its distribution by age and gender in university clinic patients. Eur J Dent. 2010;4(3):270-9.
3. Sandhu SV, Tiwari R, Bhullar RK, Bansal H, Bhandari R, Kakkar T, et al. Sterilization of extracted human teeth: A comparative analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2012;2(3):170-5. doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2012.09.002
4. Meusburger T, Wülk A, Kessler A, Heck K, Hickel R, Dujic H, et al. The Detection of Dental Pathologies on Periapical Radiographs-Results from a Reliability Study. J Clin Med. 2023;12(6). doi:10.3390/jcm12062224
5. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82.
6. Iplinsky NT, Gandini Junior LG, Gandini AS, Bagatini AT, Oliveira PHJ, Silva P, et al. Radiographic evaluation of enamel thickness of permanent teeth: relevance and applicability. Dental Press J Orthod. 2024;29(3):e242422. doi:10.1590/2177-6709.29.3.e242422.oar
7. Mazzoni A, Navarro RS, Fernandes KPS, Mesquita-Ferrari RA, Horliana A, Silva T, et al. Comparison of the Effects of High-Power Diode Laser and Electrocautery for Lingual Frenectomy in Infants: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Clin Med. 2022;11(13). doi:10.3390/jcm11133783
8. Macey R, Walsh T, Riley P, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Fee PA, et al. Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12(12):Cd013811. doi:10.1002/14651858.Cd013811