OBJECTIVE: To assess the reproducibility of a wedge-guided bitewing image receptor-holding device (IRHD-WG) compared to a commercially available bitewing image receptor-holding device (IRHD-XCP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten operators randomly acquired bitewing radiographs of four posterior regions (Premolar, Molar 1, Molar 2, Molar 3) distributed in two dry bone skulls and mandibles using 2 IRHDs (IRHD-WG and IRHD-XCP). The radiographs corresponding to the same region and IRHD but acquired by different operators were paired for reproducibility comparison. A total of 360 pairs of radiographs were randomized for analysis. Objective analysis consisted of extracting the pixel values from each radiograph and comparing the values between each pair by intraclass correlation coefficient. For subjective analysis, the IRHDs images were digitally removed. Five oral radiologists blinded for the study conditions classified the radiograph pairs according to their similarity and diagnostic value. The answers' relative frequencies were compared by the chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The IRHD-WG presented a higher reproducibility (Mean = 0.850; SD = 0.144) than the IRHD-XCP (Mean = 0.615; SD = 0.287) in the objective analysis. Radiographs acquired with the IRHD-WG were more similar than those acquired with the IRHD-XCP (p < 0.001). The diagnostic value of bitewing radiographs acquired with the IRHD-WG was considered superior to those acquired with the IRHD-XCP (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For the objective and subjective analyses of reproducibility, the IRHD-WG performed better than the commercial IRHD-XCP.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reproducibility of a wedge-guided bitewing image receptor-holding device (IRHD-WG) compared to a commercially available bitewing image receptor-holding device (IRHD-XCP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten operators randomly acquired bitewing radiographs of four posterior regions (Premolar, Molar 1, Molar 2, Molar 3) distributed in two dry bone skulls and mandibles using 2 IRHDs (IRHD-WG and IRHD-XCP). The radiographs corresponding to the same region and IRHD but acquired by different operators were paired for reproducibility comparison. A total of 360 pairs of radiographs were randomized for analysis. Objective analysis consisted of extracting the pixel values from each radiograph and comparing the values between each pair by intraclass correlation coefficient. For subjective analysis, the IRHDs images were digitally removed. Five oral radiologists blinded for the study conditions classified the radiograph pairs according to their similarity and diagnostic value. The answers' relative frequencies were compared by the chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The IRHD-WG presented a higher reproducibility (Mean = 0.850; SD = 0.144) than the IRHD-XCP (Mean = 0.615; SD = 0.287) in the objective analysis. Radiographs acquired with the IRHD-WG were more similar than those acquired with the IRHD-XCP (p < 0.001). The diagnostic value of bitewing radiographs acquired with the IRHD-WG was considered superior to those acquired with the IRHD-XCP (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For the objective and subjective analyses of reproducibility, the IRHD-WG performed better than the commercial IRHD-XCP.
Authors: Laurence Gaalaas; Donald Tyndall; André Mol; Eric T Everett; Ananta Bangdiwala Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 2.419