Diagnostic accuracy of two software modalities for detection of caries lesions in digital radiographs from four dental systems
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
1Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. hhintze@odont.au.dk
Objective:
To compare the caries diagnostic accuracy of two software modalities used in the assessment of digital radiographs obtained with four different dental systems, and to evaluate whether the software used for image assessment influenced the mutual comparison of those four dental systems relating to their caries diagnostic accuracy.
Methods:
Under in vitro and standardized conditions 122 teeth (with 228 unrestored approximal and 99 occlusal surfaces) were radiographed in blocks of 3 test teeth and 2 non-test teeth using two storage phosphor plate systems: Digora (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland) and DenOptix (Gendex, Dentsply, Milan, Italy) and two charge coupled device (CCD)-based sensor systems: Dixi (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) and Sidexis (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). The images were displayed and examined in two software modalities: their own dedicated software and a general software. Three observers examined all images for the presence of approximal enamel and dentine and occlusal dentine caries lesions using a 5-point confidence scale. The true presence of caries was validated by ground section histology. The diagnostic accuracy of the software modalities was expressed as ROC curve areas (A(z)) and differences between modalities were tested by paired t-test. Comparison of systems was analysed by post hoc t-test.
Results:
Results of approximal and occlusal surfaces assessed together revealed nearly identical mean A(z) with the two software modalities on images obtained with the Digora (A(z)=0.71) and DenOptix (A(z)=0.72) systems. On Dixi images the mean A(z) was 0.75 using the system's own software and 0.73 using the general software. On Sidexis images the corresponding mean A(z)s were 0.79 and 0.75. None of those differences were significant.
Conclusion:
No significant difference in caries diagnostic accuracy was found between two software modalities used for examination of digital radiographs obtained with four different digital systems, and the software modality did not influence the mutual rank of the four systems relating to their diagnostic accuracy.
