Evaluation of digital periapical radiographs obtained by dental students

Ersan, Nilüfer; Dölekoğlu, Zehra Semanur; Fişekçioğlu, Erdoğan; İlgüy, Dilhan

doi:10.5505/yeditepe.2016.96168

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are numerous studies about the clinical competencies and knowledge levels in dentistry students. 12,[17][18][19][20] In addition, there are studies in which dentistry students evaluated their own treatments. 21,22 There are also some studies which evaluated educational perspectives and compared clinical educations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Prosthodontic Clinical Internship Experiences of 4th and 5th Grade Dentistry Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Altan¹,

ÇINAR²

2023

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Prosthodontic Clinical Internship Experiences of 4th and 5th Grade Dentistry Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Altan¹,

ÇINAR²

2023

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dental radiology is a field that could also benefit from prototyping, given the need for phantoms to learn radiographic techniques, avoiding unjustified X‐ray exposure and recurrent examinations 4 . Moreover, the scientific evidence shows that there still is a need for improvement in the training methodologies of intraoral radiographs, considering the high rate of reported errors 5–13 . In this context, this paper presents the use of low‐cost 3D printing as a practical method for training intraoral radiographic techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies report a considerable amount of errors during intraoral radiographs, 5–7 despite the phantom used. Even though digital systems reduce processing errors, technical errors related to sensor positioning and angle determination are still present 8–13 . Consequently, intraoral radiograph training is still an important issue to be discussed on an educational basis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three‐Dimensional printed model for preclinical training in oral radiology

Giacomini

Dotto

Mello

et al. 2022

Eur J Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: 3D printing is experiencing significant growth in the teaching and learning process. This study aims to present a 3D printed skull model for preclinical intraoral radiographic practice.Materials and Methods: Two 3D printed mannequins were created. One mannequin used an STL file of a skull that was edited using two 3D modelling software (Meshmixer and Netfabb). The second mannequin was designed directly from a patient's segmented CBCT data and then converted into an STL file. Both mannequins were printed using fused deposition modelling (FDM) technology and polylactic acid (PLA) filament; teeth for the second mannequin were also printed using digital light processing (DLP). The printed skull bones were attached, the mandible was articulated to the articular fossa of the temporal bone, and the teeth were inserted into the alveoli. Intraoral radiographs of both mannequins were taken using a digital sensor (RVG 5100, Carestream).Results: Both 3D printed mannequins showed satisfactory radiographic appearance, allowing geometric representation of each intraoral radiographic projection, regardless of STL file origin. Anatomical structures, such as the periodontal ligament space, zygomatic process of the maxilla and intermaxillary suture, were represented. The

show abstract

“…The positioning errors were mostly observed at upper left molars (14.2%), cone cut, and incorrect vertical angulation were mostly detected in lower left molars (13.43%) and upper left molars (1.72%). In the literature, the rates of positioning and cone cut errors were reported to range between 17.27 and 64.9% (23)(24)(25), and between 11.42 and 28.1% (7,9,23,26,27), as well as the rate of incorrect angulation ranging between 9.23 and 62.2% (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28). In the study, Öztas et al showed that the periapical errors were mostly observed in the maxillary molar region (24.7%) (29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evaluation of panoramic, periapical, and cephalometric radiographic errors in dentistry

Titiz

Evirgen

2021

Int Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the effects of working days and hours on panoramic and periapical radiographic errors and investigate the association between patient-induced cephalometric radiographic errors and skeletal malocclusions. Methodology: Obtained from archives of Manisa Dental Health Center, 1402 periapical, 1329 panoramic, and 309 cephalometric radiographs were investigated retrospectively between January-June 2018, and the radiographic errors were determined. Periapical, panoramic, and total errors were grouped according to the number of radiographs, day intensity, and acquisition date and time for each day. Cephalometric radiographs were not included to determine the effects of working hours and days on radiographic errors since the radiographs were taken over the weekend. Patient-induced cephalometric radiographic errors were investigated under the classification of skeletal malocclusions. The independent sample t-test was used to investigate the average range difference between two independent groups for normally distributed variables. However, in situations where the assumption of normality was not met, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed. Results: Total errors were mostly detected on Tuesday (p=0.035). Errors of panoramic and periapical radiographs acquired in the afternoon were higher than those of the radiographs acquired before noon only on Monday (p=0.024, p=0.035). The most common errors observed in periapical radiographs were the positioning errors (23.9%) and cone cut (17.3%), respectively. The most common errors observed in panoramic radiographs were chin tipped high (17.00%), and head turned to one side (9.9%), respectively. Among Class I, II, and III malocclusions, open lips were observed as the most frequent cephalometric radiographic errors (28.6, 15.4, and 16.1%, respectively). Conclusion: The percentage of radiographic errors increases with the intense workload. An anatomical structure may lead to patient-induced cephalometric radiographic errors. How to cite this article: Titiz S, Evirgen Ş. The evaluation of panoramic, periapical, and cephalometric radiographic errors in dentistry. Int Dent Res 2021;11(3):185-95. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no3.8 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

show abstract

Evaluation of digital periapical radiographs obtained by dental students

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Evaluation of the Prosthodontic Clinical Internship Experiences of 4th and 5th Grade Dentistry Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Evaluation of the Prosthodontic Clinical Internship Experiences of 4th and 5th Grade Dentistry Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Three‐Dimensional printed model for preclinical training in oral radiology

The evaluation of panoramic, periapical, and cephalometric radiographic errors in dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About