Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
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.
Objective: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of different devices for visualizing digital images in detecting simulated internal root resorption (IRR). Methods: 26 uniradicular human teeth were sectioned along its long axis and randomly divided into two groups. Then, they were submerged in hydrochloric acid (HCl) P.A 37% at different times to make two types of defects: Type 1 (2 hours), and type 2 (3 hours). Digital periapical radiographs were acquired in three moments: before section, after section and after immersion in acid. The images were evaluated on three different devices: 27-inch iMac Desktop, 8-inch Android Tablet, and 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus using a 5-point scale. Results: The sensitivity and accuracy values were higher with the use of the Android Tablet, for both types of defects. For the values of the area under ROC curve, higher results were observed with the Android Tablet and lower results with the iMac, showing a significant difference (p < 0.05) when comparing the use of the iMac with the Android Tablet and iPhone 8, for type 1 defects. When comparing the different devices, in the evaluation of images of type 2 defects, the values showed no statistical difference, regardless of the device evaluated (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The size of the lesion interferes with the detection capacity in the image. However, the use of portable devices does not impair the diagnosis of IRR, regardless of size and the dental practioners may use different devices/display, under optimal viewing conditions, to detect IRR lesions, without jeopardizing the diagnostic ability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.