reproducibility between conventional and digital periapical radiography for bone height measurement

Clicks: 515
ID: 219018
2015
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #2 of 320 articles by views in european journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the european cancer prevention organisation (ecp)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 320 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background. Several diagnostic aids are available for bone height measurement. Digital and conventional radiographs are the two ones most used in Dentistry. Few studies accounting for accuracy and precision have been conducted to compare these methods.  Objective. The aim of this study was to estimate reproducibility between conventional and digital periapical radiography in bone height measurement in patients with chronic periodontitis.  Methods. a consistency diagnostic test study was performed. 136 patients with chronic periodontitis were included, selecting the worst prognosis teeth and two radiographs —conventional and digital— were taken for each one. Two experienced and blinded examiners performed radiographic measurements. Reproducibility was obtained through Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient by using the statistical package STATA™ for Windows.  Results. Average age was 38.8 (SD: 9.9) and 61.6 % were female patients. 125 pairs of matched radiographs for 1000 measurements were evaluated. Overall reproducibility between the methods for mesial and distal measurements were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55-0.70) and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71) respectively.  Conclusions. Reproducibility between methods was considered poor, including subgroup analysis, therefore, reproducibility between methods is minimal. Usage of these methods in periodontics should be made implementing the whole knowledge of the technical features and the advantages of these systems.
Reference Key
pallares2015revistareproducibility Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Miguel Simancas Pallares;Jorge Andrés Rubio Romero;Edgar Cortés Reyes
Journal european journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the european cancer prevention organisation (ecp)
Year 2015
DOI
10.15446/revfacmed.v63.n4.53224
URL
https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/revfacmed/article/view/53224
Keywords
Epidemiology reproducibility of results periodontics medicinemedicine (general)

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.