Analysis of sensitivity and specificity of a new digital subtraction system: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare a new digital subtraction system with conventional radiograph images for the detection of periapical and periodontal bone lesions. STUDY DESIGN Periapical and periodontal bone lesions were simulated with cortical bone chips of varying sizes placed on a human dry mandible. Radiographic film images were acquired from varying projections and were subsequently digitized, registered, and subtracted. Four clinicians evaluated the subtracted images, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS The mean sensitivity and specificity of the Diagnostic Subtraction Radiography system for detecting bone lesions of all sizes with varying projection geometry were 87.90% and 85.23%, respectively. The corresponding results for conventional radiograph images were 47.54% and 97.38%. The difference in sensitivity was statistically significant, whereas the difference in specificity was not. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that, even when radiographs are taken from disparate projection geometries, the Diagnostic Subtraction Radiography system is capable of excellent discrimination between healthy and disease states in this in vitro model.

[1]  J Ostuni,et al.  Registration of dental radiographs using projective geometry. , 1993, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[2]  H. Worthington,et al.  Evaluation of a dental subtraction radiography system. , 1997, Journal of Periodontal Research.

[4]  S. Dunn,et al.  A comparison of two registration techniques for digital subtraction radiography. , 1993, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Influence of variations in projection geometry on the detectability of periodontal bone lesions. A comparison between subtraction radiography and conventional radiographic technique. , 1984, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[6]  C. Streckfus,et al.  Sensitivity of various radiographic methods for detection of oral cancellous bone lesions. , 1998, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[7]  A Wenzel,et al.  Digital subtraction radiography in assessing bone changes in periodontal defects following guided tissue regeneration. , 1992, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[8]  S R Matteson,et al.  Advanced imaging methods. , 1996, Critical reviews in oral biology and medicine : an official publication of the American Association of Oral Biologists.

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

[10]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Digital subtraction radiography for diagnosis of periodontal bone lesions with simulated high-speed systems. , 1983, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[11]  R L Webber,et al.  Computer Correction of Projective Distortions in Dental Radiographs , 1984, Journal of dental research.

[12]  S C White,et al.  Film-holding instruments for intraoral subtraction radiography. , 1988, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[13]  M S Reddy,et al.  Radiographic diagnosis in periodontics. , 1995, Periodontology 2000.

[14]  E Hausmann,et al.  Studies on the angular reproducibility of positioning patients adjacent to an x-ray tube. 2. A new electronically guided, force-sensitive sensor-based alignment system. , 1995, Journal of periodontal research.

[15]  L. Ortman,et al.  Relationship between alveolar bone measured by 125I absorptiometry with analysis of standardized radiographs: 2. Bjorn technique. , 1982, Journal of periodontology.

[16]  Accuracy in detecting bone lesions in vitro with conventional and subtracted direct digital imaging. , 1995, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[17]  P. F. van der Stelt,et al.  Modern Radiographic Methods in the Diagnosis of Periodontal Disease , 1993 .

[18]  R L Webber,et al.  X-ray image subtraction as a basis for assessment of periodontal changes. , 1982, Journal of periodontal research.

[19]  T M Lehmann,et al.  Observer-independent registration of perspective projection prior to subtraction of in vivo radiographs. , 1998, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[20]  K. Gröndahl,et al.  Subtraction radiography for the diagnosis of periapical bone lesions. , 1988, Endodontics & dental traumatology.

[21]  S. Socransky,et al.  A method for the geometric and densitometric standardization of intraoral radiographs. , 1983, Journal of periodontology.

[22]  S M Dunn,et al.  The effect of independent film and object rotation on projective geometric standardization of dental radiographs. , 1995, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[23]  N. Mankovich,et al.  Influence of geometric distortion and exposure parameters on sensitivity of digital subtraction radiography. , 1987, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[24]  A Wenzel.  Effect of manual compared with reference point superimposition on image quality in digital subtraction radiography. , 1989, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[25]  D A Tyndall,et al.  Digital subtraction radiography for detecting cortical and cancellous bone changes in the periapical region. , 1990, Journal of endodontics.

[26]  R. Ellwood,et al.  A digital subtraction radiography investigation of upper first molar proximal bone density changes in adolescents. , 2010, Journal of periodontal research.

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

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

[29]  M K Jeffcoat,et al.  Semiautomated image registration for digital subtraction radiography. , 1998, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[30]  K. Kornman.  Nature of periodontal diseases: assessment and diagnosis. , 1987, Journal of periodontal research.

[31]  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.

[32]  Influence of variations in projection geometry and lesion size on detection of computer-simulated crestal alveolar bone lesions by subtraction radiography. , 1991, Journal of periodontal research.

[33]  G J Ettinger,et al.  Development of automated registration algorithms for subtraction radiography. , 1994, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[34]  M S Reddy,et al.  Extraoral control of geometry for digital subtraction radiography. , 1987, Journal of periodontal research.

[35]  Richard L. Webber,et al.  Exposure Geometry And Film Contrast Differences As Bases For Incomplete Cancellation Of Irrelevant Structures In Dental Subtraction Radiography , 1981, Other Conferences.

[36]  K. Langeland,et al.  Development of predictable periapical lesion monitored by subtraction radiography. , 1987, Endodontics & dental traumatology.

[37]  Rasika Rajapakshe,et al.  Pseudocorrelation: a fast, robust, absolute, grey-level image alignment algorithm. , 1994 .

[38]  E Hausmann,et al.  Algorithm for the automated alignment of radiographs for image subtraction. , 1994, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[39]  M. Jeffcoat.  Current concepts in periodontal disease testing. , 1994, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[40]  I. Sewerin.  Device for serial intraoral radiography with controlled projection angles. , 1990, Tandlaegebladet.