Masahiro Imanaka

Accuracy of intraoral radiography, multidetector helical CT, and limited cone-beam CT for the detection of horizontal tooth root fracture.

OBJECTIVE The accuracies of intraoral radiography (IOR), multidetector helical computerized tomography (MDHCT) at slice thicknesses 0.63 mm and 1.25 mm, and limited cone-beam computerized tomography (LCBCT) were compared for detection of horizontal tooth root fracture. STUDY DESIGN In 7 beagle dogs, 28 maxillary anterior teeth were used, of which 13 had artificially induced horizontal root fracture. The specimens were examined by the above-mentioned 4 modalities. Diagnosis of root fracture was based on direct visualization of radiolucent line in each image by 6 radiologists. RESULTS Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy (true positives + true negatives) for detecting fracture lines in LCBCT (0.96 +/- 0.04, 0.97 +/- 0.03, 0.93 +/- 0.04, respectively) were significantly higher than MDHCT at 0.63 mm (0.76 +/- 0.09, 0.8 +/- 0.05, 0.8 +/- 0.05, respectively), MDHCT at 1.25 mm (0.49 +/- 0.09, 0.66 +/- 0.04, 0.69 +/- 0.05, respectively), and IOR (0.51 +/- 0.18, 0.67 +/- 0.08, 0.69 +/- 0.08, respectively). Specificity and positive predictive value showed no significant intermethod difference among the 4 modalities. CONCLUSION Limited cone-beam CT is more useful than the other 3 radiographic modalities for diagnostic imaging of horizontal tooth root fracture.

Effectiveness of a radiology-anatomy instructional module in a clinical course on oral radiology

ObjectivesAn insufficient knowledge of anatomy often complicates the interpretation of radiological findings by students learning clinical medicine. During a 3-week clinical course in oral radiology, students attended lectures on anatomy for half of each day. Our objectives were to evaluate this program and determine why some students remained unmotivated to learn anatomy.MethodsSurveys were carried out using two questionnaires, one for evaluating the students’ beliefs regarding the necessity of knowing anatomy and their understanding of radiology and anatomy, and the other for determining the value of the educational program. In total, 126 questionnaires were analyzed. Structural equation modeling and decision analysis were used to analyze the data obtained.ResultsBeliefs regarding the necessity of knowing anatomy were explained by three variables: the necessity of knowing imaging anatomy, the necessity of knowing gross anatomy, and understanding of anatomy. Awareness of the necessity of knowing anatomy and understanding of graphical images were not strongly correlated. The educational program was characterized by two factors: “value” and “appropriateness” These were strongly correlated. Student interest in the content of the course was found to be the most important factor in student evaluations of the educational program. Students who answered “agree”, “disagree” or “strongly disagree” to three items, “interested in the content of the course”, “obtained knowledge through the course” and “expected the course to be useful in the near future” were likely to have insufficient understanding of and awareness of the necessity of radiology and anatomy.ConclusionsThe inclusion of lectures on anatomy is beneficial for improving student understanding of oral radiology. Student interest in the content is important in evaluations of radiology–anatomy programs.