Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging of occlusal dentine caries: a comparison among conventional radiographs, digital radiographs, and cone-beam computed tomography images

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare conventional radiographs, digital radiographs, equalized images of digital radiographs, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images for in vitro imaging of occlusal dentine caries.

Methods

A total of 160 extracted human posterior teeth were evaluated in the study. All teeth were free of restorations and proximal caries. The clinical appearances of the occlusal surfaces of the teeth ranged from sound to discolored, with no macroscopic cavitation. Conventional intraoral radiographs, digital intraoral radiographs, and CBCT images of the teeth were taken. The images were evaluated independently by three observers for the presence of occlusal dentine caries. The teeth were then sectioned and computerized images were obtained for the histological sections using a digital camera linked to a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. The histological images were assessed for the presence or absence of dentinal caries. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (Az value) were calculated for each diagnostic method.

Results

Sensitivity was greatest for CBCT images (mean = 0.63) and lowest for digital radiographs (mean = 0.38). Specificity was greatest for digital radiographs (mean = 0.76) and lowest for CBCT images (mean = 0.64). The mean Az values ranged from 0.56 to 0.60 (P > 0.05). The interobserver and intraobserver agreements were greatest for CBCT images (mean kappa = 0.66 and 0.73, respectively).

Conclusions

There were no differences in the accuracy of detection of non-cavitated occlusal dentine caries among the diagnostic modalities used. Cone-beam computed tomography images were more sensitive, while digital radiographs were more specific.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Braga MM, Mendes FM, Ekstrand KR. Detection activity assessment and diagnosis of dental caries lesions. Dent Clin North Am. 2010;54:479–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Souza JF, Boldieri T, Diniz MB, Rodrigues JA, Lussi A, Cordeiro RC. Traditional and novel methods for occlusal caries detection: performance on primary teeth. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lussi A, Imwinkelried S, Pitts N, Longbottom C, Reich E. Performance and reproducibility of a laser fluorescence system for detection of occlusal caries in vitro. Caries Res. 1999;33:261–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Makhija SK, Gilbert GH, Funkhouser E, Bader JD, Gordan VV, Rindal DB, et al. The prevalence of questionable occlusal caries: findings from the dental practice-based research network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143:1343–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Souza-Zaroni WC, Ciccone JC, Souza-Gabriel AE, Ramos RP, Corona SA, Palma-Dibb RG. Validity and reproducibility of different combinations of methods for occlusal caries detection: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res. 2006;40:194–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pereira AC, Eggertsson H, Martinez-Mier EA, Mialhe FL, Eckert GJ, Zero DT. Validity of caries detection on occlusal surfaces and treatment decisions based on results from multiple caries-detection methods. Eur J Oral Sci. 2009;117:51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Poorterman JH, Weerheijm KL, Groen HJ, Kalsbeek H. Clinical and radiographic judgment of occlusal caries in adolescents. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000;108:93–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ricketts DN, Kidd EA, Beighton D. Operative and microbiological validation of visual, radiographic and electronic diagnosis of occlusal caries in non-cavitated teeth judged to be in need of operative care. Br Dent J. 1995;179:214–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mestriner SF, Vinha D, Mestriner Junior W. Comparison of different methods for the occlusal dentine caries diagnosis. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005;13:28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):46–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S. Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:126–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:18–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rocha AS, Almeida SM, Bóscolo FN, Haiter Neto F. Inter-examiner agreement in caries radiographic diagnosis by conventional and digital radiographs. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005;13:329–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lazarchik DA, Firestone AR, Heaven TJ, Filler SJ, Lussi A. Radiographic evaluation of occlusal caries: effect of training and experience. Caries Res. 1995;29:355–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ariji Y, Shimizu Y, Okano T, Matsui O, Naitoh M, Yuasa H, et al. Influence of X-ray beam angulation in the detection of proximal caries: interobserver agreement in the CCD system. Oral Radiol. 1999;15:27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ariji Y, Takahashi J, Matsui O, Okano T, Naitoh M, Yuasa H, et al. In vitro comparison of subjective image quality of the pana digital intraoral X-ray imaging system and conventional intraoral radiography in caries detection. Oral Radiol. 1998;14:75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berkhout E, Sanderink G, van der Stelt P. Digital intra-oral radiography in dentistry. Diagnostic efficacy and dose considerations. Oral Radiol. 2003;19:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Downer MC. Concurrent validity of an epidemiological diagnostic system for caries with the histological appearance of extracted teeth as validating criterion. Caries Res. 1975;9:231–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lussi A. Impact of including or excluding cavitated lesions when evaluating methods for the diagnosis of occlusal caries. Caries Res. 1996;30:389–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Isidor S, Faaborg-Andersen M, Hintze H, Kirkevang LL, Frydenberg M, Haiter-Neto F, et al. Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:537–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. İlgüy M, Dinçer S, İlgüy D, Bayirli G. Detection of artificial occlusal caries in a phosphor imaging plate system with two types of LCD monitors versus three different films. J Digit Imaging. 2009;22:242–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Young SM, Lee JT, Hodges RJ, Chang TL, Elashoff DA, White SC. A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charge-coupled device sensors for detecting caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:445–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Haiter-Neto F, dos Anjos Pontual A, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A. Detection of non-cavitated approximal caries lesions in digital images from seven solid-state receptors with particular focus on task-specific enhancement filters. An ex vivo study in human teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2008;12:217–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X. Detection accuracy of in vitro approximal caries by cone beam computed tomography images. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79:e24–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamburoğlu K, Kurt H, Kolsuz E, Öztaş B, Tatar I, Çelik HH. Occlusal caries depth measurements obtained by five different imaging modalities. J Digit Imaging. 2011;24:804–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valizadeh S, Tavakkoli MA, Karimi VH, 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;6:1–5.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kamburoğlu K, Murat S, Yüksel SP, Cebeci AR, Paksoy CS. Occlusal caries detection by using a cone-beam CT with different voxel resolutions and a digital intraoral sensor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109:e63–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kayipmaz S, Sezgin ÖS, Saricaoğlu ST, Çan G. An in vitro comparison of diagnostic abilities of conventional radiography, storage phosphor, and cone-beam computed tomography to determine occlusal and approximal caries. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80:478–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Frydenberg M. Accuracy of caries detection with four storage phosphor systems and E-speed radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;3:170–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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;111:103–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheng JG, Zhang ZL, Wang XY, Zhang ZY, Ma XC, Li G. Detection accuracy of proximal caries by phosphor plate and cone-beam computerized tomography images scanned with different resolutions. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:1015–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Kuwait University Research Grant No. DR02/2013.

Ethical standard

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Conflict of interest

Qasem Alomari, Muawia Qudeimat, and Aref Ghayyath declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat, P.O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait, Kuwait

    Qasem D. Alomari

  2. Department of Developmental and Preventive Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat, P.O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait, Kuwait

    Muawia A. Qudeimat

  3. Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Safat, P.O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait, Kuwait

    Aref A. Ghayyath

Authors
  1. Qasem D. Alomari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muawia A. Qudeimat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aref A. Ghayyath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qasem D. Alomari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alomari, Q.D., Qudeimat, M.A. & Ghayyath, A.A. Imaging of occlusal dentine caries: a comparison among conventional radiographs, digital radiographs, and cone-beam computed tomography images. Oral Radiol 31, 73–80 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-014-0181-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-014-0181-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation