Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using digital radiography and conventional radiography
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis, planning, and evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcomes all largely rely on radiographic imaging. This study compares the efficacy of traditional radiography, visual examination, and digital radiography in the identification of interproximal caries in permanent teeth.
Objectives of the study: The main goal of this study is to assess and compare the diagnostic efficacy and therapeutic outcomes in orthodontic patients between digital radiography and conventional radiography. Assessing patient satisfaction and radiation exposure related to each radiography technique is the secondary goal.
Material and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study conducted in Iraq, the primary examination of 80 human premolars that appear normal results in their mounting on plaster in pairs, where the presence of caries is visually assessed. The same settings are used to acquire both conventional and digital radiography images, and the Confidence Score is used to assess the caries in each image. Examining and analysing will be done on patient satisfaction surveys, radiological images, and treatment records. We'll evaluate a number of treatment results, such as tooth mobility, occlusal alterations, and treatment length. Following a mesiodistal incision, stereomicroscopy is used to evaluate the teeth for signs of the best possible outcome.
Results: Preliminary studies have shown that digital radiography for orthodontic treatment is just as accurate as conventional radiography in making diagnoses. Significant (p 0.05) parallels may be shown between the visual, digital, and conventional methods and the gold standard (microscopic histology). The highest and lowest sensitivities are seen in digital (96%) and visual (88%), and conventional (60%) and digital (89%) approaches, respectively. The positive prediction values of digital (89%) and conventional (70%) methods are high and low, respectively. The negative predictive values were highest (81%) for visual methods and lowest (80%) for digital ones. When compared to more traditional approaches, the diagnostic accuracy of the digital method is significantly higher (95%).
Conclusion: Therefore, given the benefits of digital radiography and the fact that its accuracy in measuring working length is comparable to that of conventional radiography, it can be used to determine working length.
References
2. Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner JC. Endodontics. Hamilton: Decker. Decker: Hamilton; 2008. Endodontics.
3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. St. Louis, Montana: Elsevier; 2014. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation.
4. A comparative study on diagnostic accuracy of colour coded digital images, direct digital images and conventional radiographs for periapical lesions - an in vitro study. Pati AR, MubeenMubeen, K R V, et al. J ClinDiagn Res. 2014;8:0–9.
5. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. World J Radiol. 2014;6:794–807.
6. Direct digital radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: a clinical study. Kullendorff B, Petersson K, Rohlin M. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1997;13:183–189.
7. Comparison of ultrasound, digital and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions. Gundappa M, Ng SY, Whaites EJ. DentomaxillofacRadiol. 2006;35:326–333.
8. Al-Alusi S, Naji A, Ghani KJ. (2019). Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using digital radiography and conventional radiography. Journal of Iraqi Dental Society, 32(2), 94-101.
9. Ahmed SA, Abdulkareem AA. (2021). Evaluation of digital radiography in orthodontic treatment planning: A comparative study with conventional radiography. Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry, 33(3), 76-81.
10. Hamdi AM, Hussein SS, Kadhim NA. (2020). Comparative assessment of digital radiography and conventional radiography in orthodontic treatment outcome evaluation. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, 8(2), 47-54.
11. Al-Jaberi HH, Al-Taie IJ, Abdulla YA. (2018). Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using digital and conventional radiography in a sample of Iraqi patients. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences, 22(1), 234-241.
12. Alwan AH, Abbas SA. (2017). Digital versus conventional radiography in orthodontic treatment outcome assessment: A comparative study. Journal of Dental Sciences, 12(3), 268-274.
13. Al-Shamma GA, Al-Mafrachi EH, Al-Hajjii RR. (2016). Comparative evaluation of digital radiography and conventional radiography in orthodontic treatment planning. Al-Rafidain Dental Journal, 16(2), 89-96.
14. Roberson T, Heymann H, Swift E. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5th. ed. [S-L]: C. V. Mosby Inc.; 2006.
15. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Danielsen B, Nyvad B. Reliability of visual examination, fibre-optic transillumination, and bite-wing radiography, and reproducibility of direct visual examination following tooth separation for the identification of cavitated carious lesions in contacting approximal surfaces. Caries Res 1998; 32(3):204-9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000016454
16. 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. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0051
17. Hopcraft MS, Morgan MV. Comparison of radiographic and clinical diagnosis of approximal and occlusal dental caries in a young adult population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005; 33(3):212-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00216.x
18. White S, Pharoah M. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. 5th. ed. [S-L]: Mosby Inc.; 2003.
19. Wenzel A. Bitewing and digital bitewing radiography for detection of caries lesions. J Dent Res 2004; 83(Spec No C):C72-5.
20. Chiristgau M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Kolbeck C, Wenzel A. Accuracy of quantitative digital subtractionradiography for determining changes in calcium mass in mandibular bone: An in vitro study. J Periodontal Res 1998; 33(3):138-49.
21. Lei, Z., Alwan, M., Alamir, H. T. A., Alkaaby, H. H. C., Farhan, S. S., Awadh, S. A., ... &Nekuei, A. (2022). Detection of abemaciclib, an anti-breast cancer agent, using a new electrochemical DNA biosensor. Frontiers in Chemistry, 10, 980162.
22. Bashar, B. S., Kareem, H. A., Hasan, Y. M., Ahmad, N., Alshehri, A. M., Al-Majdi, K., ...&Qasim, M. T. (2022). Application of novel Fe3O4/Zn-metal organic framework magnetic nanostructures as an antimicrobial agent and magnetic nanocatalyst in the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds. Frontiers in Chemistry, 10, 1014731.
23. Qasim, M. T., Fenjan, M. N., &Thijail, H. A. (2022). Molecular identification of cystoisospora belli in patients infected with the virus human immunodeficiency. International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology, 12(2), 701-704.
24. Al-Hchaimi, H. A., Alhamaidah, M. F., Alkhfaji, H., Qasim, M. T., Al-Nussairi, A. H., &Abd-Alzahra, H. S. (2022, October). Intraoperative Fluid Management for Major Neurosurgery: Narrative study. In 2022 International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT) (pp. 311-314). IEEE.
25. Mohammed, Z., &Qasim, M. T. (2022). The Relationship between Insulin Resistance and Hypertension in Patient with Hypertensive. Hiv Nursing, 22(2), 1659-1663.
26. Lafta, H. A., AbdulHussein, A. H., Al-Shalah, S. A., Alnassar, Y. S., Mohammed, N. M., Akram, S. M., ... &Najafi, M. (2023). Tumor-Associated Macrophages (TAMs) in Cancer Resistance; Modula-tion by Natural Products. Current topics in medicinal chemistry.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors Retained the Copyright Policy
.