Cinar Aziman1, Kristina Hellén-Halme2, Xie-Qi Shi1,3. 1. Section of Oral Diagnostics and Surgery, Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. 3. Section of Oral Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Clinical Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the subjective image quality and reliability of two digital sensors. In addition, the image quality of the two sensors evaluated by specialists and general dentists were compared. METHODS: 30 intraoral bitewings from five patients were included in the study, 15 were exposed with a Dixi sensor (CCD-based) and 15 with a ProSensor (CMOS-based) using modified parallel technique. Three radiologists and three general dentists evaluated the images in pair. A five-point scale was used to register the image quality. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis was performed to compare the image quality and the observer agreement was assessed in terms of intra class correlation co-efficient. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found on image quality between the sensors. The average scores of the observer agreement were moderate with an average of 0.66 and an interval of 0.30 to 0.87, suggesting that there was a large variation on preference of image quality. However, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of the area under the VGC- curves between the specialist group and the general dentist group ( p = 0.043), in which the specialist group tended to favor the ProSensor. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective image quality of the two intraoral sensors were comparable when evaluated by both general and oral radiologists. However, the radiologists seemed to prefer the ProSensor to the Dixi as compared to general dentists. Inter- observer conformance showed a large variation on the preference of the image quality.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the subjective image quality and reliability of two digital sensors. In addition, the image quality of the two sensors evaluated by specialists and general dentists were compared. METHODS: 30 intraoral bitewings from five patients were included in the study, 15 were exposed with a Dixi sensor (CCD-based) and 15 with a ProSensor (CMOS-based) using modified parallel technique. Three radiologists and three general dentists evaluated the images in pair. A five-point scale was used to register the image quality. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis was performed to compare the image quality and the observer agreement was assessed in terms of intra class correlation co-efficient. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found on image quality between the sensors. The average scores of the observer agreement were moderate with an average of 0.66 and an interval of 0.30 to 0.87, suggesting that there was a large variation on preference of image quality. However, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of the area under the VGC- curves between the specialist group and the general dentist group ( p = 0.043), in which the specialist group tended to favor the ProSensor. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective image quality of the two intraoral sensors were comparable when evaluated by both general and oral radiologists. However, the radiologists seemed to prefer the ProSensor to the Dixi as compared to general dentists. Inter- observer conformance showed a large variation on the preference of the image quality.
Entities:
Keywords:
dental; digital imaging; digital sensors; image quality
Authors: Francisco Haiter-Neto; Andrea dos Anjos Pontual; Morten Frydenberg; Ann Wenzel Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 3.573