ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study assessed the accuracy of linear measurements and dental implant selection performed in a smartphone application compared to a computer software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four DICOM files from partially edentulous patients in the posterior region of the mandible were evaluated by three trained and calibrated examiners. Images were analyzed using three visualization methods: cross-sectional view (CScr) and coronal (CSco) plane using the CS 3D Imaging software, and coronal (DRco) plane using the DroidRender smartphone application. For the purpose of standardization, measurements of bone width and height were taken in the edentulous posterior region of the mandible, 10 mm posterior to the mental foramen. Dental implant selection was made according to Straumann® Standard implant catalog 2022/2023. Linear measurements were compared using the ANOVA test for repeated measurements and implant selection was compared using the Friedman test. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software, considering a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Linear measurements showed a statistically significant difference for bone width (p = 0.030), but not for height (p = 0.685). The choice of implant was not influenced by the visualization method (p = 0.614). CONCLUSION: It is possible to suggest the use of smartphone applications as an additional diagnostic tool for DICOM evaluation and dental implant planning in the posterior region of the mandible. Smartphone applications allow an assessment not limited to 2D images or to static environments. Therefore, information exchange and diagnostic opinion in emergency situations may be facilitated.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Portable equipment that allows quick exchanges of information, such as smartphones, is increasingly important in dentistry. Thus, they have become frequently used, with the potential to contribute to the tomographic evaluation. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of smartphone applications for diagnosing the root canal system (RCS) and measuring the root canal length. METHODS: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine files of 92 lower incisor teeth were evaluated by 2 trained and calibrated examiners using CS 3D Imaging software (Carestream Health, Rochester, NY) and 2 smartphone applications (DroidRender; Startm, Zhubei, Taiwan and Horos Mobile; iCat Solutions Ltd, Norwich, United Kingdom). The RCS was assessed according to Vertucci's classification, and the tooth length was measured using linear cusp-apex measurements. The diagnostic reference standard was obtained by the mode and the mean of the evaluations made by 3 experienced examiners using the CS 3D Imaging software. The diagnostic performance of RCS was evaluated using sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and overall accuracy (Ac). Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement of linear measurements. RESULTS: The diagnostic tests showed similar performance between the smartphone applications (DroidRender: Se = 1.00, Sp = .95, and Ac = 0.97; Horos: Se = 0.95, Sp = .94, and Ac = 0.95) and the computer software (Se = 0.97-0.95, Sp = .93-0.96, and Ac = 0.95-0.96). The smartphone applications showed discrepancies greater than 1.0 mm for the dental lengths, which may signal relevant differences in some clinical situations. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone applications offered similar diagnostic performance in comparison with the computer software for the RCS evaluation.
