...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology >Comparative study between two techniques for alveolar bone loss assessment: A pilot study
【24h】

Comparative study between two techniques for alveolar bone loss assessment: A pilot study

机译:两种评估牙槽骨损失的技术的比较研究:一项初步研究

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective:To conduct a comparative study between two techniques for assessment of alveolar bone loss.Materials and Methods:Absolute and relative techniques were evaluated. The sample consisted of 16 radiographs supposed to meet a single criterion: The reference points applied (Cementum-enamel junction (CEJ) alveolar bone crest and root apex) should be visible. Bone height was measured in the selected radiographs as the percentage of root length through both techniques. Data were submitted to the Statistical Package for Social Science software. Results obtained by both methods were converted into bone loss index values and then categorized. Sensitivity and specificity of the relative technique, compared to the absolute technique, were calculated. Wilcoxon test and the Bland and Altman's method were employed for comparisons. Significance level was set at 5%.Results:For the absolute and relative techniques, means of bone loss index were respectively of 4.81 (±2.25) and 4.75 (±1.80). Bone loss index ≥6 (alveolar bone loss ≥50%) was found in 5 (31.2%) teeth, in the absolute technique, and in 4 (25%) teeth, according to the relative technique. There was no statistically significant difference between both methods (P>0.05). According to the Bland and Altman's method, it was verified a bias of 0.06, and limits of upper and lower agreement of, respectively, 1.58 and –1.45. Sensitivity of 0.8 and specificity of 1 were found for the relative technique compared to the absolute one.Conclusion:There was no significant difference between the techniques evaluated, and the relative technique was found to be reliable for measuring alveolar bone loss.
机译:目的:比较两种评估牙槽骨丢失的技术。材料与方法:对绝对技术和相关技术进行评估。该样品由16个X射线照片组成,这些X射线照片应符合一个标准:所施加的参考点(牙骨质-牙釉质交界处(CEJ)牙槽骨c和根尖)应可见。通过这两种技术,在选定的X线照片中测量骨高,作为根长的百分比。数据已提交至“社会科学统计软件包”。通过两种方法获得的结果均转换为骨丢失指数值,然后进行分类。与绝对技术相比,计算了相对技术的敏感性和特异性。比较采用Wilcoxon检验和Bland和Altman方法。显着性水平设定为5%。结果:就绝对技术和相对技术而言,骨丢失指数的平均值分别为4.81(±2.25)和4.75(±1.80)。根据相关技术,在绝对技术中有5(31.2%)颗牙齿发现骨质丢失指数≥6(牙槽骨缺失≥50%),在4颗(25%)牙齿中发现了骨质丢失指数≥6(牙槽骨损失≥50%)。两种方法之间无统计学差异(P> 0.05)。根据布兰德(Bland)和奥特曼(Altman)的方法,已验证偏差为0.06,上下一致的极限分别为1.58和–1.45。与绝对技术相比,相关技术的敏感性为0.8,特异性为1。结论:所评估的技术之间无显着差异,并且相关技术对于测量牙槽骨丢失是可靠的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号