Trent Lally1, James R Geist2, Qingzhao Yu3, Van T Himel4, Kent Sabey4. 1. Department of Endodontics, Louisiana State University Health Science Center, School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana. Electronic address: tlally01@gmail.com. 2. Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Detroit Mercy, School of Dentistry, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Biostatistics Program, Louisiana State University School of Public Health, New Orleans, Louisiana. 4. Department of Endodontics, Louisiana State University Health Science Center, School of Dentistry, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study compared images displayed on 1 desktop monitor, 1 laptop monitor, and 2 tablets for the detection of contrast and working length interpretation, with a null hypothesis of no differences between the devices. METHODS: Three aluminum blocks, with milled circles of varying depth, were radiographed at various exposure levels to create 45 images of varying radiographic density. Six observers viewed the images on 4 devices: Lenovo M92z desktop (Lenovo, Beijing, China), Lenovo Z580 laptop (Lenovo), iPad 3 (Apple, Cupertino, CA), and iPad mini (Apple). Observers recorded the number of circles detected for each image, and a perceptibility curve was used to compare the devices. Additionally, 42 extracted teeth were imaged with working length files affixed at various levels (short, flush, and long) relative to the anatomic apex. Observers measured the distance from file tip to tooth apex on each device. The absolute mean measurement error was calculated for each image. Analysis of variance tests compared the devices. Observers repeated their sessions 1 month later to evaluate intraobserver reliability as measured with weighted kappa tests. Interclass correlation coefficients compared interobserver reliability. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in perceptibility detection between the Lenovo M92z desktop, iPad 3, and iPad mini. However, on average, all 3 were significantly better than the Lenovo Z580 laptop (P values ≤.015). No significant difference in the mean absolute error was noted for working length measurements among the 4 viewing devices (P = .3509). CONCLUSIONS: Although all 4 viewing devices seemed comparable with regard to working length evaluation, the laptop computer screen had lower overall ability to perceive contrast differences.
INTRODUCTION: This study compared images displayed on 1 desktop monitor, 1 laptop monitor, and 2 tablets for the detection of contrast and working length interpretation, with a null hypothesis of no differences between the devices. METHODS: Three aluminum blocks, with milled circles of varying depth, were radiographed at various exposure levels to create 45 images of varying radiographic density. Six observers viewed the images on 4 devices: Lenovo M92z desktop (Lenovo, Beijing, China), Lenovo Z580 laptop (Lenovo), iPad 3 (Apple, Cupertino, CA), and iPad mini (Apple). Observers recorded the number of circles detected for each image, and a perceptibility curve was used to compare the devices. Additionally, 42 extracted teeth were imaged with working length files affixed at various levels (short, flush, and long) relative to the anatomic apex. Observers measured the distance from file tip to tooth apex on each device. The absolute mean measurement error was calculated for each image. Analysis of variance tests compared the devices. Observers repeated their sessions 1 month later to evaluate intraobserver reliability as measured with weighted kappa tests. Interclass correlation coefficients compared interobserver reliability. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in perceptibility detection between the Lenovo M92z desktop, iPad 3, and iPad mini. However, on average, all 3 were significantly better than the Lenovo Z580 laptop (P values ≤.015). No significant difference in the mean absolute error was noted for working length measurements among the 4 viewing devices (P = .3509). CONCLUSIONS: Although all 4 viewing devices seemed comparable with regard to working length evaluation, the laptop computer screen had lower overall ability to perceive contrast differences.
Authors: Adriana D Cruz; Maria Cn Castro; Marcelo F Aguiar; Ludmilla S Guimarães; Cinthya C Gomes Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Thomas Gerhard Wolf; Anna Krauß-Mironjuk; Richard Johannes Wierichs; Benjamín Briseño-Marroquín Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 4.379