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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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
There is limited documentation of using fluorescence images in oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and oral cancer screening through the field of teledentistry. This study aims to develop and evaluate the validity and reliability of the intraoral camera with the combination method of autofluorescence and LED white light used for OPMDs and oral cancer screening in teledentistry. The intraoral camera with fluorescent aids, which uses a combined method of both autofluorescence and LED white light, was developed before the device was evaluated for validity and reliability as a OPMDs screening tool for teledentistry. All lesions of thirty-four OPMD patients underwent biopsy for definitive diagnosis and were examined by an oral medicine specialist. Both images under autofluorescent and LED white light mode captured from the device were sent online and interpreted for the initial diagnosis and dysplastic features in addition to being compared to the direct clinical examination and histopathological findings. The combination method was also compared with autofluorescence method alone. The device provided good image quality, which was enough for initial diagnosis. Using the combination method, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the device via teledentistry were 87.5%, 84.6%, 63.6%, and 95.7%, respectively, which were higher than autofluorescence method alone in every parameter. The concordance of dysplastic lesion was 85.29% and 79.41% for category of lesion. The validity and reliability results of the combination method for the screening of dysplasia in OPMDs were higher than autofluorescent method alone. The intraoral camera with fluorescent aids for the OPMDs screening can be utilized for screening via teledentistry.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570874 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6814027 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!