Sorin Teich1, Wisam Al-Rawi2, Masahiro Heima1, Fady F Faddoul1, Gil Goldzweig3, Zvi Gutmacher4, Dror Aizenbud5. 1. School of Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 4. School of Graduate Dentistry, Rambam Health Care Campus and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine - Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 5. School of Graduate Dentistry, Rambam Health Care Campus and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine - Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. aizenbud@ortho.co.il.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality generated by eight commercially available intraoral sensors. METHODS: Eighteen clinicians ranked the quality of a bitewing acquired from one subject using eight different intraoral sensors. Analytical methods used to evaluate clinical image quality included the Visual Grading Characteristics method, which helps to quantify subjective opinions to make them suitable for analysis. RESULTS: The Dexis sensor was ranked significantly better than Sirona and Carestream-Kodak sensors; and the image captured using the Carestream-Kodak sensor was ranked significantly worse than those captured using Dexis, Schick and Cyber Medical Imaging sensors. The Image Works sensor image was rated the lowest by all clinicians. Other comparisons resulted in non-significant results. CONCLUSIONS: None of the sensors was considered to generate images of significantly better quality than the other sensors tested. Further research should be directed towards determining the clinical significance of the differences in image quality reported in this study.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality generated by eight commercially available intraoral sensors. METHODS: Eighteen clinicians ranked the quality of a bitewing acquired from one subject using eight different intraoral sensors. Analytical methods used to evaluate clinical image quality included the Visual Grading Characteristics method, which helps to quantify subjective opinions to make them suitable for analysis. RESULTS: The Dexis sensor was ranked significantly better than Sirona and Carestream-Kodak sensors; and the image captured using the Carestream-Kodak sensor was ranked significantly worse than those captured using Dexis, Schick and Cyber Medical Imaging sensors. The Image Works sensor image was rated the lowest by all clinicians. Other comparisons resulted in non-significant results. CONCLUSIONS: None of the sensors was considered to generate images of significantly better quality than the other sensors tested. Further research should be directed towards determining the clinical significance of the differences in image quality reported in this study.
Authors: H Kitagawa; A G Farman; J P Scheetz; W P Brown; J Lewis; M Benefiel; K Kuroyanagi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: K Yoshiura; T Kawazu; T Chikui; M Tatsumi; K Tokumori; T Tanaka; S Kanda Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 1999-01
Authors: Aaron S Coyner; Ryan Swan; James M Brown; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Sang Jin Kim; J Peter Campbell; Karyn E Jonas; Susan Ostmo; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Aaron S Coyner; Ryan Swan; J Peter Campbell; Susan Ostmo; James M Brown; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Sang Jin Kim; Karyn E Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-01-31