首页> 外文期刊>Caries research >Diagnostic Outcome of Methods Frequently Used for Caries Validation. A Comparison of Clinical Examination, Radiography and Histology following Hemisectioning and Serial Tooth Sectioning.
【24h】

Diagnostic Outcome of Methods Frequently Used for Caries Validation. A Comparison of Clinical Examination, Radiography and Histology following Hemisectioning and Serial Tooth Sectioning.

机译:龋齿验证常用方法的诊断结果。半切和连续牙切后的临床检查,放射线照相和组织学比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The aim of this study was to compare the caries diagnostic outcome of four methods frequently used as validation for dental caries. The diagnostic outcome of clinical examination (CL), radiography (RA), and histology after serial tooth sectioning (HI-serial) on 373 approximal and 158 occlusal surfaces was compared, and furthermore histology after hemi- (HI-hemi) and serial sectioning on another 113 approximal and 53 occlusal surfaces was compared. Two thresholds for each method (CL: (1) sound vs. all caries scores, and (2) non-cavitated vs. cavitated lesions; RA and HI: (1) sound vs. all caries scores, and (2) no dentine vs. dentine lesions) were evaluated. In general, large differences in diagnostic outcomes were observed with the various methods. At threshold 1, CL resulted in significantly more lesions than both RA and HI-serial on approximal surfaces, and than RA on occlusal surfaces. At threshold 2, no significant differences between CL, RA and HI-serial were found on approximal surfaces, but on occlusal surfaces significantly more lesions were diagnosed with RA and HI-serial than with CL. Significantly more occlusal lesions were found by HI-serial than by RA at both thresholds 1 and 2. On approximal surfaces, a similar result was found only at threshold 1. On approximal surfaces, significantly more lesions were diagnosed with HI-serial than with HI-hemi at both thresholds 1 and 2. On occlusal surfaces the same was found only at threshold 1. The intra-observer reproducibility was higher using HI-serial than using RA and CL.
机译:这项研究的目的是比较经常用于验证龋齿的四种方法的龋齿诊断结果。比较了在373个牙合面和158个咬合面上进行连续牙齿切片(HI-serial)后的临床检查(CL),放射线照相(RA)和组织学的诊断结果,并比较了半(HI-hemi)和连续切片后的组织学比较了另外113个咬合面和53个咬合面。每种方法有两个阈值(CL:(1)声音与所有龋齿评分,(2)非空洞与空洞病变; RA和HI:(1)声音与所有龋齿评分,(2)无牙本质对牙本质病变)进行评估。通常,使用各种方法观察到的诊断结果差异很大。在阈值1处,CL导致的损伤远大于RA和HI-serial的近似表面,也远大于RA的咬合表面。在阈值2处,在近似表面上未发现CL,RA和HI序列之间的显着差异,但在咬合面上,诊断为RA和HI序列的病变明显多于CL。在两个阈值1和2时,HI序列发现的咬合病变远多于RA。在大约表面上,仅在阈值1处发现了相似的结果。在大约表面,被诊断为HI序列的病变明显多于HI -hemi在阈值1和2处均存在。在咬合面上,仅在阈值1处发现相同。与RA和CL相比,使用HI-serial观察者内的再现性更高。

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