Brasil DM, Gaêta-Araujo H, Almeida SM, Angeli JPB, Roque-Torres GD

Language: English
References: 20
Page: 176-185
PDF size: 195.01 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the observers’ diagnostic performance in panoramic radiography using monitor, tablet, X-ray image view box, and against window daylight as a visualization method in different diagnostic tasks. Thirty panoramic radiography were assessed by three calibrated observers for each visualization method, in standardized light conditions, concerning dental caries, widened periodontal ligament space, and periapical bone defects from the four first molars; mucosal thickening and retention cysts in maxillary sinus; and stylo-hyoid ligament calcification and atheroma. A five-point confidence scale was used. The standard-reference was performed by two experienced observers. Diagnostic values using window light were significantly lower for caries and periapical bone defect and retention cyst, stylo-hyoid ligament calcification detection (p‹0.05). For atheroma detection, X-ray image view box, tablet, and widow light had lower accuracy than the evaluation on the monitor (p‹0.05). Observer’s diagnostic performances are worsened using window light as an evaluation method for panoramic radiography for dental, sinus, and calcification disorders, while the monitor was the most reliable method.

REFERENCES

1. Pakbaznejad E.E., Pakkala T., Haukka J.,Siukosaari P. Low reproducibility betweenoral radiologists and general dentists withregards to radiographic diagnosis of caries.Acta Odontol Scand. 2018; 76 (5): 346-50.

2. Dau M., Marciak P., Al-Nawas B., StaedtH., Alshiri A., Frerich B., et al. Evaluation ofsymptomatic maxillary sinus pathologies usingpanoramic radiography and cone beam computedtomography-influence of professionaltraining. Int J Implant Dent. 2017; 3 (1): 13.

3. Sabarudin A., Tiau Y.J. Image qualityassessment in panoramic dental radiography:a comparative study between conventionaland digital systems. Quant Imaging MedSurg. 2013; 3 (1): 43-8.

4. Kim T-Y, Choi J-W, Lee S-S, Huh K., YiW-J, Heo M, et al. Effect of LCD monitortype and observer experience on diagnosticperformance in soft-copy interpretations ofthe maxillary sinus on panoramic radiographs.Imaging Sci Dent. 2011; 41 (1): 11-6.

5. Kallio-Pulkkinen S., Haapea M., LiukkonenE., Huumonen S., Tervonen O., NieminenM.T. Comparison of consumer grade, tabletand 6MP-displays: observer performancein detection of anatomical and pathologicalstructures in panoramic radiographs. OralSurg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.2014; 118 (1): 135-41.

6. Choi J.W., Han W.J., Kim E.K. Image enhancementof digital periapical radiographsaccording to diagnostic tasks. Imaging SciDent. 2014; 44 (1): 31-5.

7. Cicchetti D. V. Guidelines, Criteria, andRules of Thumb for Evaluating Normedand Standardized Assessment Instrumentsin Psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994; 6 (4):284-90.

8. Lima C.A.S., Freitas D.Q., AmbrosanoG.M.B., Haiter-Neto F., Oliveira M.L.Influence of interpretation conditions on thesubjective differentiation of radiographiccontrast of images obtained with a digitalintraoral system. Oral Surg Oral Med OralPathol Oral Radiol. 2019; 127 (5): 444-50.

9. Shintaku W.H., Scarbecz M., Venturin J.S.Evaluation of interproximal caries using theIPad 2 and a liquid crystal display monitor.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.2012; 113 (5): e40-4.

10. Pakkala T., Kuusela L., Ekholm M., WenzelA., Haiter-Neto F., Kortesniemi M. Effectof Varying Displays and Room Illuminanceon Caries Diagnostic Accuracy in DigitalDental Radiographs. Caries Res. 2012; 46(6): 568-74.

11. Hellén-Halme K., Lith A. Carious lesions:diagnostic accuracy using pre-calibratedmonitor in various ambient light levels: an invitro study. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2013;42 (8): 20130071.

12. Arnold L. V. The radiographic detection ofinitial carious lesions on the proximal surfacesof teeth. Part II. The influence of viewingconditions. Oral Surgery, Oral Med OralPathol. 1987; 64 (2): 232-40.

13. Herron J.M., Bender T.M., Campbell W.L.,Sumkin J.H., Rockette H.E., Gur D. Effectsof Luminance and Resolution on ObserverPerformance with Chest Radiographs. Radiology.2000; 215 (1): 169-74.

14. Abreu M., Mol A., Ludlow J.B. Performanceof RVGui sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plusfilm for proximal caries detection. Oral SurgOral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2001; 91 (3): 381-5.

15. Abdinian M., Razavi S.M., Faghihian R.,Samety A.A., Faghihian E. Accuracy ofDigital Bitewing Radiography versus DifferentViews of Digital Panoramic Radiographyfor Detection of Proximal Caries. J Dent(Tehran). 2015; 12 (4): 290-7.

16. Hashem M.A., Moore W.S., Noujeim M.,Deahl S.T., Geha H., McMahan C.A. Detectionof Class II caries on the iPad with RetinaDisplay. Gen Dent. 2015; 63 (4): 56-60.

17. Nardi C., Calistri L., Pradella S., DesideriI., Lorini C., Colagrande S. Accuracy ofOrthopantomography for Apical Periodontitiswithout Endodontic Treatment. J Endod.2017; 43 (10): 1640-6.

18. Malina-Altzinger J., Damerau G., GrätzK.W., Stadlinger P.D.B. Evaluation of themaxillary sinus in panoramic radiography-acomparative study. Int J Implant Dent. 2015;1 (1): 17.

19. Alves N., Deana N.F., Garay I. Detectionof common carotid artery calcifications onpanoramic radiographs: prevalence andreliability. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014; 7 (8):1931-9.

20. Freire J.L., França S.R., Teixeira F.W., FontelesF.A., Chaves F.N., Sampieri M.B. Prevalenceof calcification of the head and necksoft tissue diagnosed with digital panoramicradiography in Northeast Brazilian population.Minerva Stomatol. 2019; 68 (1): 17-24.