Endodontic radiography - what's displaying the radiograph? The yield of commercial computer screens vs. DICOM calibrated medical screens in endodontic radiography.
Journal
BDJ open
ISSN: 2056-807X
Titre abrégé: BDJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101709456
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jul 2024
27 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
19
03
2024
accepted:
26
06
2024
revised:
24
06
2024
medline:
28
7
2024
pubmed:
28
7
2024
entrez:
27
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A comparison between commercial computer screens and DICOM-calibrated medical screens for characterizing anatomy and diagnosing dental pathologies was performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the ability of each of those screens to identify root apices and widening of the periodontal ligament (PDL) in the posterior maxillary area. Digital X-ray images of 53 maxillary molar teeth were examined by means of a commercial computer screen and again two months later with a DICOM screen to compare their ability to help identify and diagnose PDL widening and to locate the root apices of those teeth. The DICOM screen had a significantly better ability to identify widened PDLs (from 31.4% to 34.8% of the cases compared to 19% to 26.1% for the commercial screens, P < .001), depending upon the observer. The DICOM screen was also significantly superior in depicting the root apices compared to the commercial screens (from 77.4% to 83.6% of the cases compared to 56% to 66.7% for the commercial screens, P < 0.001), depending upon the observer. DICOM-calibrated medical screens were significantly superior to commercial computer screens for identifying widened PDLs and locating the root apex in the posterior maxillary area.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39068173
doi: 10.1038/s41405-024-00247-y
pii: 10.1038/s41405-024-00247-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
61Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Countryman SC, Melo SL, Belem MD, Haiter-Neto F, Vargas MA, Allareddy V. Performance of 5 different displays in the detection of artificial incipient and recurrent caries-like lesions. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;125:182–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2017.11.004
pubmed: 29242128
Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Setoguchi T, Sakai S, Okafuji T, et al. Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Clin Imaging. 2011;35:341–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.08.015
pubmed: 21872122
Buls N, Shabana W, Verbeek P, Pevenage P, De Mey J. Influence of display quality on radiologists’ performance in the detection of lung nodules on radiographs. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:738–43.
doi: 10.1259/bjr/48049509
pubmed: 17709363
Liang Z, Li K, Yang X, Du X, Liu J, Zhao X, et al. ROC analysis for diagnostic accuracy of fracture by using different monitors. J Dig. Imaging. 2006;19:276–8.
doi: 10.1007/s10278-006-0265-9
Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Nafziger J, Fan J, Lubin J. Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images. J Digital Imaging. 2004;17:258–63.
doi: 10.1007/s10278-004-1016-4
Araki K, Fujikura M, Sano T. Effect of display monitor devices on intraoral radiographic caries diagnosis. Clin oral Investig. 2015;19:1875–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1401-z
pubmed: 25595866
Hirschorn DS, Krupinski EA, Flynn MJ. PACS displays: how to select the right display technology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:1270–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.09.016
pubmed: 25467904
Kallio-Pulkkinen, Soili, Effect of display type and room illuminance in viewing digital dental radiography. Display performance in panoramic and intraoral radiography University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Medicine; Medical Research Center Oulu; Oulu University Hospital Acta Univ. Oul. D 1312, 2015
Orstavik D, editor. Essential endodontology: prevention and treatment of apical periodontitis. John Wiley & Sons; 2020 Jan 21.
Ulusu T, Bodur H, Odabaş ME. In vitro comparison of digital and conventional bitewing radiographs for the detection of approximal caries in primary teeth exposed and viewed by a new wireless handheld unit. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2010;39:91–4.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/15182314
Abbott PV. Classification, diagnosis and clinical manifestations of apical periodontitis. Endod Top. 2004;8:36–54.
doi: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2004.00098.x
Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Endodontic success—who’s reading the radiograph? Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol. 1972;33:432–7.
doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(72)90473-2
pubmed: 4501172
Tewary S, Luzzo J, Hartwell G. Endodontic radiography: who is reading the digital radiograph? J Endod. 2011;37:919–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.027
pubmed: 21689544
Omer OE, Al Shalabi RM, Jennings M, Glennon J, Claffey NM. A comparison between clearing and radiographic techniques in the study of the root‐canal anatomy of maxillary first and second molars. Int Endod J. 2004;37:291–6.
doi: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00731.x
pubmed: 15086749