Shalini Tewary1, Joseph Luzzo, Gary Hartwell. 1. Department of Endodontics, New Jersey Dental School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Digital radiographic imaging systems have undergone tremendous improvements since their introduction. Advantages of digital radiographs over conventional films include lower radiation doses compared with conventional films, instantaneous images, archiving and sharing images easily, and manipulation of several radiographic properties that might help in diagnosis. METHODS: A total of 6 observers including 2 endodontic residents, 3 endodontists, and 1 oral radiologist evaluated 150 molar digital periapical radiographs to determine which of the following conditions existed: normal periapical tissue, widened periodontal ligament, or presence of periapical radiolucency. The evaluators had full control over the radiograph's parameters of the Planmeca Dimaxis software program. All images were viewed on the same computer monitor with ideal vie-wing conditions. The same 6 observers evaluated the same 150 digital images 3 months later. The data were analyzed to determine how well the evaluators agreed with each other (interobserver agreement) for 2 rounds of observations and with themselves (intraobserver agreement). RESULTS: Fleiss kappa statistical analysis was used to measure the level of agreement among multiple raters. The overall Fleiss kappa value for interobserver agreement for the first round of interpretation was 0.34 (P < .001). The overall Fleiss kappa value for interobserver agreement for the second round of interpretation was 0.35 (P < .001). This resulted in fair (0.2-0.4) agreement among the 6 raters at both observation periods. A weighted kappa analysis was used to determine intraobserver agreement, which showed on average a moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the interpretation of a dental radiograph is subjective, irrespective of whether conventional or digital radiographs are used. The factors that appeared to have the most impact were the years of experience of the examiner and familiarity of the operator with a given digital system.
INTRODUCTION: Digital radiographic imaging systems have undergone tremendous improvements since their introduction. Advantages of digital radiographs over conventional films include lower radiation doses compared with conventional films, instantaneous images, archiving and sharing images easily, and manipulation of several radiographic properties that might help in diagnosis. METHODS: A total of 6 observers including 2 endodontic residents, 3 endodontists, and 1 oral radiologist evaluated 150 molar digital periapical radiographs to determine which of the following conditions existed: normal periapical tissue, widened periodontal ligament, or presence of periapical radiolucency. The evaluators had full control over the radiograph's parameters of the Planmeca Dimaxis software program. All images were viewed on the same computer monitor with ideal vie-wing conditions. The same 6 observers evaluated the same 150 digital images 3 months later. The data were analyzed to determine how well the evaluators agreed with each other (interobserver agreement) for 2 rounds of observations and with themselves (intraobserver agreement). RESULTS: Fleiss kappa statistical analysis was used to measure the level of agreement among multiple raters. The overall Fleiss kappa value for interobserver agreement for the first round of interpretation was 0.34 (P < .001). The overall Fleiss kappa value for interobserver agreement for the second round of interpretation was 0.35 (P < .001). This resulted in fair (0.2-0.4) agreement among the 6 raters at both observation periods. A weighted kappa analysis was used to determine intraobserver agreement, which showed on average a moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the interpretation of a dental radiograph is subjective, irrespective of whether conventional or digital radiographs are used. The factors that appeared to have the most impact were the years of experience of the examiner and familiarity of the operator with a given digital system.