Making the grade

Bird, R.; Donnell, C.

doi:10.1038/s41415-021-2677-9

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Faculty of General Dental Practice and Public Health England recommended a 2-point grading scale, where images are recorded as either diagnostically acceptable not acceptable in order to help improve personal practice or check if the required diagnostic quality was met. 30 In the present study, by using a 5-point scale, the observers aimed at examining radiographic images in more detail, thus providing a more comprehensive assessment of detector performance in terms of subjective quality. Apart from observer variability, a number of confounding factors in the digital environment add further problems, such as the condition, quality, calibration, and settings of the viewing display; the quality of the graphics card used; and the ambient light level in the room.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical comparison of intraoral CMOS and PSP detectors in terms of time efficiency, patient comfort, and subjective image quality

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study compared the effectiveness of complementary metal-oxide semiconductors (CMOS) and photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates as intraoral imaging systems in terms of time efficacy, patient comfort, and subjective image quality assessment in real clinical settings. Materials and Methods Fifty-eight patients (25 women and 33 men) were included. Patients were referred for a full-mouth radiological examination including 1 bitewing radiograph (left and right) and 8 periapical radiographs for each side (left maxilla/mandible and right maxilla/mandible). For each patient, 1 side of the dental arch was radiographed using a CMOS detector, whereas the other side was radiographed using a PSP detector, ensuring an equal number of left and right arches imaged by each detector. Clinical application time, comfort/pain, and subjective image quality were assessed for each detector. Continuous variables were summarized as mean±standard deviation. Differences between detectors were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance. P <0.05 was accepted as significant. Results The mean total time required for all imaging procedures with the CMOS detector was significantly lower than the mean total time required for imaging procedures with PSP ( P <0.05). The overall mean patient comfort scores for the CMOS and PSP detectors were 4.57 and 4.48, respectively, without a statistically significant difference ( P >0.05). The performance of both observers in subjectively assessing structures was significantly higher when using CMOS images than when using PSP images for all regions ( P <0.05). Conclusion The CMOS detector was found to be superior to the PSP detector in terms of clinical time efficacy and subjective image quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%