Author/Authors :
Sharifi Shoshtari, Sanaz Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dental Medicine - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz , Mohagheghi, Arman Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dental Medicine - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz , Farhadi, Nastaran Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dental Medicine - Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz , Kheradmand, Negin Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz , Naderi, Lida Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - School of Dental Medicine - Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences - Kermanshah, Iran
Abstract :
Background: Radiologic diagnosis of external apical root resorption (EARR) is clinically important.
Noise might disrupt this diagnosis. Therefore, we assessed the efficacy of noise reduction on
periapical indirect digital radiography.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study as performed on 792 radiographs. A total of 66
single‑rooted premolars were inserted in dried hemimandibles of sheep and fixed with modeling
wax. Digital images were obtained using the parallel technique. The storage phosphor plates were
processed in the DIGORA Optime scanner. The resulting images were sent to a computer using
the Scanora software for radiographic analysis. The teeth were removed from the mandible, and
artificial EARR defects were simulated. Afterward, the indirect digital radiographs were obtained
at the same condition of the baseline. Five levels of noise reduction were applied. All images were
saved in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine format and monitored by two observers
twice over 2 weeks. Data were analyzed statistically using Cochran and McNemar tests (α = 0.05).
Results: The highest sensitivity rate was found in the baseline group (0.99), and the lowest sensitivity
was related to the “four‑time noise reduction” method (0.91). The highest specificity rate was in
the “five‑times noise reduction” method (0.88) and the lowest specificity was associated with
“one‑time noise reduction” method (0.71). There was no statistical difference between images
with/without noise reduction enhancement with varied gradation levels in terms of diagnostic
accuracies of EARR (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Application of noise reduction procedure in Scanora software might have no effect
on the accuracy of EARR diagnosis.