OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the detection of interproximal caries in digital intraoral images presented in a 24-inch liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor and the IPad 2. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-seven digital bitewing radiographs of 102 adult teeth were generated by a charge-coupled device sensor and presented to 4 dentists in 2 sessions. The dentists were asked to rate the presence or absence of carious lesions using a 5-point scale. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were weighted using the Wilcoxon test, and the z test for the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For the IPad 2 and LCD monitor, A(z) values were 0.87 and 0.86, respectively. For the tablet, the mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.75, 0.86, and 0.83, respectively. For the LCD monitor, these values were 0.77, 0.82, and 0.80, respectively.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the detection of interproximal caries in digital intraoral images presented in a 24-inch liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor and the IPad 2. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-seven digital bitewing radiographs of 102 adult teeth were generated by a charge-coupled device sensor and presented to 4 dentists in 2 sessions. The dentists were asked to rate the presence or absence of carious lesions using a 5-point scale. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were weighted using the Wilcoxon test, and the z test for the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: For the IPad 2 and LCD monitor, A(z) values were 0.87 and 0.86, respectively. For the tablet, the mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.75, 0.86, and 0.83, respectively. For the LCD monitor, these values were 0.77, 0.82, and 0.80, respectively.