Skip to main content

Table 1 Examiners’ analysis with both methods divided by time of acid exposure

From: Performance of cone beam computed tomography and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting interproximal alveolar bone lesions: a study in pig mandibles

  Control 2 hrs 4 hrs 6 hrs Total
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
1st examiner – 1st observation
 CBCT
  No lesion 16 (80) 11 (55) 3 (15) 0 (0) 30 (37.5)
  Lesion 4 (20) 9 (45)a 17 (85) 20 (100)b 50 (62.5)
 Radiograph
  No lesion 13 (65) 5 (25) 6 (30) 6 (30) 30 (37.5)
  Lesion 7 (35) 15 (75)a 14 (70) 14 (70)b 50 (62.5)
1st examiner – 2nd observation
 CBCT
  No lesion 16 (80) 9 (45) 5 (25) 2 (10) 32 (40)
  Lesion 4 (20) 11 (55) 15 (75) 18 (90) 48 (60)
 Radiograph
  No lesion 12 (60) 5 (25) 3 (15) 3 (15) 23 (28.8)
  Lesion 8 (40) 15 (75) 17 (85) 17 (85) 57 (71.2)
2nd examiner – 1st observation
 CBCT
  No lesion 12 (60) 4 (20) 1 (5) 1 (5) 18 (22.5)
  Lesion 8 (40) 16 (80) 19 (95) 19 (95) 62 (77.5)
 Radiograph
  No lesion 9 (45) 4 (20) 2 (10) 0 (0) 15 (18.8)
  Lesion 11 (55) 16 (80) 18 (90) 20 (100) 65 (81.2)
2nd examiner – 2nd observation
 CBCT
  No lesion 9 (45) 2 (10) 2 (10) 0 (0) 13 (16.2)
  Lesion 11 (55) 18 (90) 18 (90) 20 (100) 67 (83.8)
 Radiograph
  No lesion 10 (50) 2 (10) 2 (10) 1 (5) 15 (18.8)
  Lesion 10 (50) 18 (90) 18 (90) 19 (95) 65 (81.2)
  1. Equal letters indicate significant association between method and correct answers, calculated by McNemar test. (p = 0.031)