Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment in different room lighting conditions and image display devices. METHODS: After approval by Research Ethical Board, 20 images were obtained from blocks with one endodontically treated tooth. Of the 20 endodontic treatments conducted in the laboratory, of those the randomly selected 10 teeth (50% of sample) received some quality defect in three parameters-apical limit, adaptation to root canal and homogeneity of the root canal filling material. Digital radiographs (DIGORA® Optime, Soredex, Milwaukee, WI) were obtained, which were evaluated (8 times) by 10 observers in two different conditions of room lighting, with bright (1000 to 1200 lux) and dim light (25 to 50 lux), using two different image display devices, smartphones and laptop computers. The observers assessed the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment with respect to quality of each one of three parameters individually. The data of observers' responses in terms of the quality of each parameter were statistically compared using Cronbach's α coefficient, diagnostic tests, π coefficient and ANOVA with Tukey tests, at a significant level setting of 5% (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The mean of reliability of observer responses ranged from 0.89 (intra-evaluator) to 0.66 (inter-evaluator). The mean values of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area were 0.661 (PD = 0.098), with laptop in bright lighting appraising homogeneity of the root canal filling material on the worst performance (ROC area = 0.57), which was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and 0.81 with laptop in dim lighting appraising apical limit on the best performance. Differences (p < 0.05) occurred mainly among parameters used for assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Room lighting and image display devices have very little influence in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment. Thus, we suggest the use of smartphones as an acceptable image display device in daily clinical practice in routine bright lighting conditions.

Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging compared with computed tomography for implant planning.

AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with computed tomography (CT) for dental implant planning in respect to bone measurements. METHODS: Five dry mandibles were submitted to MRI and CT examinations. Each mandible had three specific sites identified with markers, in a total of 15 sites to be studied. The images provided by the MRI and CT examinations were delivered to four specialists in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology to measure the bone height at the specific sites. Subsequently, the bone height of the dry mandibles was directly measured in the determined sites. The measurements obtained by the specialists in MRI and CT images were compared with the measurements obtained directly from the dry mandibles using the ANOVA test with a 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: The differences between the measurements obtained directly from the dry mandibles and the measurements from the MRI exams varied from 0.13 to 1.67 mm, with 10 sites being overestimated in MRI exams and five sites being underestimated. The differences between the measurements from the dry mandibles and CT exams varied from 0.02 to 1.25 mm, with nine sites being overestimated in CT exams and six sites being underestimated. The differences between the measurements from the MRI and CT exams varied from 0.03 to 1.00 mm, with nine sites giving higher values in MRI exams and six sites giving higher values in CT exams. There were no statistically significant differences between the three grous of measurements (P=0.98). CONCLUSION: The MRI, when compared with CT, shown to be reliable in respect to bone measurements for dental implant planning.