A perspective on the diagnosis of cracked tooth: imaging modalities evolve to AI-based analysis

Table 1 Comparative study between CBCT and PR (periapical radiography)

Literature	Method	Subjects	Results (%)
Literature	Method	Subjects	ACC	SEN	SPE	PPV	NPV
[145]	CBCT	Dogs’ anterior maxillae		82	90	86
[145]	PR	Dogs’ anterior maxillae		87	95	92
[146]	CBCT	Human mandibular premolar and molar teeth		98	100	99	99
[146]	PR	Human mandibular premolar and molar teeth		65	100	100	71
[52]	CBCT	Human teeth with gutta-percha		68.8	36.7	27.7	75
[52]	PR	Human teeth with gutta-percha		19.2	97.5	61.2	78
[147]	CBCT	Human teeth (40 premolars and 40 molars)	86	77.5	91.3
[147]	PR	Human teeth (40 premolars and 40 molars)	66	37.5	95
[35]	CBCT	Human teeth		70	100	100	64
[35]	PR	Human teeth		23	100	100	100
[50]	CBCT	135 human teeth (49were endodontically treated)	91.9	89.5	97.5	98.8	79.6
[50]	PR	135 human teeth (49were endodontically treated)	48.1	26.3	100	100	36.4

PPV: Positive Predictive Value; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity; ACC: Accuracy

ISSN: 1475-925X