The detection of in vitro produced periodontal bone lesions by conventional radiography and photographic subtraction radiography using observers and quantitative digital subtraction radiography.

Changes in the periodontium produced by removal of bone cylinders at one interdental site of a dry human mandible, were recorded radiographically. These artificial lesions had diameters of 0.3 mm increasing to 1.4 mm in steps of 0.1 mm. Radiographs were obtained using 3 different X-ray tube potentials and 3 different amounts of radiation. These 9 exposure variables resulted in 9 series of radiographs from the artificial lesions. Observers were asked to determine the presence or absence of these periodontal bone lesions on conventional radiographs and on photographically subtracted images. The images were also evaluated by a quantitative digital subtraction technique. This study showed that the smallest periodontal bone changes were detected with the quantitative digital subtraction technique compared to the other methods using observers. On photographically subtracted images, smaller bone changes were detected by the observers than on conventional radiographs. Only the detection threshold of the quantitative digital subtraction technique was influenced by the 2 exposure factors: kVp and mAs.

[1]  P B Imrey,et al.  Considerations in the statistical analysis of clinical trials in periodontitis. , 1986, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  E Hausmann,et al.  Subtraction radiography and computer assisted densitometric analyses of standardized radiographs. A comparison study with 125I absorptiometry. , 1985, Journal of periodontal research.

[3]  L. Christersson,et al.  Progression of untreated periodontitis as assessed by subtraction radiography. , 1986, Journal of periodontal research.

[4]  C. Metz Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[5]  P. Janssen,et al.  Non-Gaussian distribution of differences between duplicate probing depth measurements. , 1987, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[6]  P. Janssen,et al.  Quantitative measurement of periodontal bone changes by digital subtraction. , 1986, Journal of periodontal research.

[7]  E Hausmann,et al.  Methodological aspects and quantitative adjuncts to computerized subtraction radiography. , 1987, Journal of periodontal research.

[8]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Subtraction radiography for the diagnosis of periodontal bone lesions. , 1983, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[9]  G Greenstein,et al.  Diagnosis of bone lesions by subtraction radiography. , 1985, Journal of periodontology.

[10]  U. Ruttimann,et al.  Volumetry of localized bone lesions by subtraction radiography. , 1987, Journal of periodontal research.

[11]  S. Socransky,et al.  Intraclass correlations of periodontal measurements. , 1985, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[12]  L L Laster,et al.  The effect of subsampling sites within patients. , 1985, Journal of periodontal research.

[13]  H. Gröndahl,et al.  Detectability of artificial marginal bone lesions as a function of lesion depth. A comparison between subtraction radiography and conventional radiographic technique. , 1988, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[14]  E Hausmann,et al.  Usefulness of Subtraction Radiography in the Evaluation of Periodontal Therapy. , 1985, Journal of periodontology.

[15]  U Brägger,et al.  Computer-assisted densitometric image analysis in periodontal radiography. A methodological study. , 1988, Journal of clinical periodontology.