Soili Kallio-Pulkkinen1,2, Sisko Huumonen3,4, Marianne Haapea1,2, Esa Liukkonen1,2, Annina Sipola1, Osmo Tervonen1,2,5, Miika T Nieminen1,2,5. 1. 1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. 2. 2 Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. 3. 3 Department of Oral Pathology and Radiology, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 4. 4 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 5. 5 Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology Research, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare observer performance in the detection of both anatomical structures and caries in bitewing radiographs using consumer grade displays with and without digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) calibration, tablets (third generation iPad; Apple, Cupertino, CA) and 6-megapixel (MP) displays under different lighting. METHODS: 30 bitewing radiographs were blindly evaluated on four displays under bright (510 lx) and dim (16 lx) ambient lighting by two observers. The dentinoenamel junction, enamel and dentinal caries, and the cortical border of the alveolar crests were evaluated. Consensus was considered as reference. Intraobserver agreement was determined. The proportion of equivalent ratings and weighted kappa were used to assess reliability. RESULTS: The proportion of equivalent ratings with consensus differed significantly between uncalibrated and DICOM-calibrated consumer grade display in enamel caries in upper and lower molars in bright (p = 0.013 and p = 0.003) lighting, and in dentinal caries in lower molars in both bright (p = 0.022) and dim (p = 0.004) lighting. The proportion also differed significantly between DICOM-calibrated consumer grade and 6-MP display in dentinal caries in lower molars in bright lighting (p = 0.039), tablet and consumer grade display in enamel caries in upper molars (p = 0.017) in bright lighting, tablet and 6-MP display in dentinal caries in lower molars (p = 0.003) in bright lighting and in enamel caries in lower molars (p = 0.012) in dim lighting. CONCLUSIONS: DICOM calibration improves the detection of enamel and dentinal caries in bitewing radiographs, particularly in bright lighting. Therefore, a calibrated consumer grade display can be recommended as a diagnostic tool for viewing bitewing radiographs.
OBJECTIVES: To compare observer performance in the detection of both anatomical structures and caries in bitewing radiographs using consumer grade displays with and without digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) calibration, tablets (third generation iPad; Apple, Cupertino, CA) and 6-megapixel (MP) displays under different lighting. METHODS: 30 bitewing radiographs were blindly evaluated on four displays under bright (510 lx) and dim (16 lx) ambient lighting by two observers. The dentinoenamel junction, enamel and dentinal caries, and the cortical border of the alveolar crests were evaluated. Consensus was considered as reference. Intraobserver agreement was determined. The proportion of equivalent ratings and weighted kappa were used to assess reliability. RESULTS: The proportion of equivalent ratings with consensus differed significantly between uncalibrated and DICOM-calibrated consumer grade display in enamel caries in upper and lower molars in bright (p = 0.013 and p = 0.003) lighting, and in dentinal caries in lower molars in both bright (p = 0.022) and dim (p = 0.004) lighting. The proportion also differed significantly between DICOM-calibrated consumer grade and 6-MP display in dentinal caries in lower molars in bright lighting (p = 0.039), tablet and consumer grade display in enamel caries in upper molars (p = 0.017) in bright lighting, tablet and 6-MP display in dentinal caries in lower molars (p = 0.003) in bright lighting and in enamel caries in lower molars (p = 0.012) in dim lighting. CONCLUSIONS: DICOM calibration improves the detection of enamel and dentinal caries in bitewing radiographs, particularly in bright lighting. Therefore, a calibrated consumer grade display can be recommended as a diagnostic tool for viewing bitewing radiographs.
Entities:
Keywords:
ambient light; bitewing radiographs; calibration; digital radiography; display
Authors: Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.071
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