Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of visual (VE), radiological (RE), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and laser fluorescence (LFE) examination methods for the detection of the occlusal noncavitated caries in permanent posterior teeth.
Methods: Two examiners assessed 121 selected sites on the occlusal surfaces of 44 molar teeth by visual (International Caries Assessment and Detection System II [ICDAS]), radiographic (bite-wing projection) cone-beam computed tomography, and laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent Pen) examination methods. After a 1-week interval, each measurement was repeated by two examiners. Then, the teeth were sectioned, and histological evaluation was performed, which serves as the gold standard. The lesion depths were classified and correlated with the methods evaluated for validation. The intra- and inter-examiner reliability (sensitivity, specificity) and reproducibility of all examination methods were calculated using a weighted Cohen's κ statistic. The correlation between the examination methods was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicating the area under the curve (AUC).
Results: CBCT exhibited excellent intra-examiner (0.76 for examiner 1, 0.78 for examiner 2) and fair to good inter-examiner (0.63 for the first, 0.64 for the second measurements) reproducibility. The intra-examiner reproducibility was excellent for the LFE method according to the weighted κ values of examiners 1 (0.90) and 2 (0.79). Among the combined methods, the highest AUC values (0.81-0.95) were obtained for the CBCT examination method performed by the two examiners at both the first and second measurements.
Conclusions: Cone beam computed tomography showed better performance than other diagnostic methods.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/pho.2014.3831 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!