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)