Factors affecting the diagnostic quality of bitewing radiographs: A review

British Dental Journal

Volumn 184, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 80-84

  Chadwick, B L ^a   Dummer, P H M ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTAL TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; STANDARD; TIME; TOOTH DISEASE; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, BITEWING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TECHNOLOGY, DENTAL; TIME FACTORS; TOOTH DISEASES; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 0032561865     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809549     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Manson-Hing L R. Fundamentals of dental radiography, 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1990.
2. Waites E. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1992.
3. Kyes F M, Overton N J, McKean T W. Clinical trials of caries inhibitory dentifrices. J Am Dent Assoc 1961; 63: 189-193.
4. Webber R L, Benton P A, Cvar J F, Ryge G. Diagnostic significance of intratissue contrast in bitewing radiographs. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1969; 28: 352-358.
5. Gröndahl H-G. Some factors influencing observer performance in radiographic caries diagnosis. Swed Dent 1979; 3: 157-172.
6. Jensen T W. Beam-guiding instruments for simplified dental radiography, with a training device. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1978; 46: 146-155.
7. Pitts N B. Film-holding, beam-aiming and collimating devices as an aid to standardization in intra-oral radiography: a review. J Dent 1984; 12: 36-46.
8. Benn D K, Watson T F. Correlation between film position, bite-wing shadows, clinical pitfalls, and the histologic size of approximal lesions. Quintessence Int 1989; 20: 131-141.
9. van Aken J. Optimum conditions for intraoral roentgenograms. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1969; 27: 475-491.
10. Sewerin I B. Influence of x-ray beam angulation upon the radiographic image of proximal carious lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1981; 9: 74-78.
11. Mileman P A. Radiographic caries diagnosis and restorative treatment decision making. Gröningen, PhD Thesis, 1985.
12. Arnold L V. The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Part II The influence of viewing conditions. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1987; 64: 232-240.
13. Arnold L V. The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Utrecht, University of Utrecht. Thesis, 1983.
14. Welander U, McDavid W D, Higgins N M, Morris C R. The effect of viewing conditions on the perceptibility of radiographic details. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1983; 56: 651-654.
15. Mileman P A, Purdell-Lewis D J, Weele L T van der, Leertouwer H L. Diagnostic variation caused by differences in viewbox illumination and visual ability. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1984; 13: 51-58.
16. Henrikson C-O. Iodine 125 as a radiation source for odontological roentgenology. Acta Radiologica (Suppl) 1967; 269: 29-41.
17. Fitzgerald G M. Dental radiography IV. The voltage factor (kvp). J Am Dent Assoc 1950; 41: 19-28.
18. Spangenberg Jr H D, Pool M L. A 65 or 90 kilovolt x-ray machine? Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1960; 13: 552-565.
19. Arnold L V. The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Part 1 The influence of exposure conditions. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1987; 64: 221-23 1.
20. Updegrave W J. The paralleling extension-cone technique in intraoral dental radiography. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1951; 4: 1250-1261.
21. National Radiological Protection Board and Royal College of Radiologists. Guidelines on radiology standards in primary dental care, 1994. Document Volume 5, No 3.
22. Wainwright W W. Dental radiation dose: sensitometric method for determination of exposure-development factors. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1963; 16: 674-682.
23. Wuehriann A H. Evaluation criteria for intraoral radiographic film. J Am Dent Assoc 1974; 89: 345-352.
24. Ritchey B, Feldman A, Greer W. Roentgenography of enamel. Apatite as a phantom material; contrast as a function of exposure factors. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1960; 13: 188-193.
25. Degering C I. Preliminary evaluation radiographs: aid to optimum radiographic surveys. Dent Radiogr Photagr 1968; 41: 62-63.
26. Richards A G, Colquitt W N. Reduction on dental x-ray exposures during the past 60 years. J Am Dent Assoc 1981; 103: 713-718.
27. Kogon S L, Stephens R G, Reid J A, Donner A. Ektaspeed and a screen/film system compared with Ultra-Speed in the interpretation of early proximal caries. J Can Dent Assoc 1984; 50: 397-401.
28. Stenström B, Henrikson C O, Karlsson L, Sarby B. Energy imparted from intraoral radiography. Swed Dent J 1986; 10: 125-136.
29. Gibbs S J, Pujol A, Chen T-S, James A. Patient risk from intraoral dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1988; 17: 15-23.
30. Nakfoor C A, Brooks S L. Compliance of Michigan dentists with radiographic safety recommendations. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1992; 73: 510-513.
31. Kaugars G E, Broga D W, Collett W K. Dental radiologic survey of Virginia and Florida. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1985, 60: 225-229.
32. Goran A D, Sciubba J J, Friedman R, Malamud H. Survey of radiologic practice among dental practitioners. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1989; 67: 464-468.
33. Svenson B, Lindvall A M, Gröndahl H G. A comparison of a new dental radiographic film, Agfa Gevaert Dentus M4, with Kodak Ektaspeed and Ultraspeed radiograph films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993; 22: 7-12.
34. Girsch W J, Matteson S R, McKee M N. An evaluation of Kodak Ektaspeed periapical film for use in endodontics. J Endodont 1983; 9: 282-288.
35. Fletcher J C. A comparison of Ektaspeed and Ultraspeed films using manual and automatic processing solutions. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1987; 63: 94-102.
36. Kircos L T, Staninec M, Chou L. Comparative evaluation of sensitometric properties of screen-film systems and conventional dental receptors for intraoral radiography. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1989; 68: 787-792.
37. Boere G, Aken J van. Sensitometric properties of direct exposure dental x-ray films in relation to the characteristic curve. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1990; 19: 49-54.
38. Ricketts D N J, Whaites E J, Kidd E A M, Brown J E, Wilson R F. An evaluation of the diagnostic yield from bitewing radiographs of small approximal and occlusal carious lesions in a low prevalence sample in vitro using different film types and speeds. Br Dent J 1997; 182: 51-58.
39. Thunty K H, Weinberg R. Sensitometric comparison of dental films of groups D and E. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1982; 54: 250-252.
40. Frykholm A. Kodak Ektaspeed - a new dental x-ray film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1983; 12: 47-49.
41. Kaffe I, Littner M M, Kuspet M E. Densitometric evaluation of intraoral x-ray films: Ektaspeed versus Ultraspeed. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1984; 57: 338-342.
42. Sanderink G C H, Scholte C M. A comparison between two dental films and two film-screen combinations in detecting low contrast defects and initial caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1985; 14: 113-122.
43. Diehl R, Gratt B M, Gould R G. Radiographic quality control measurements comparing D-speed film, E-speed film and xeroradiography. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1986; 61: 635-640.
44. Gröndahl K, Grondahl H-G, Olving A. A comparison of Ektaspeed and Ultraspeed films for the detection of periodontal bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1983; 12:43-46.
45. Horton P S, Sippy F H, Kohout F J, Nelson J F, Kienzle G C. A clinical comparison of speed group D and E dental x-ray films. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1984; 58: 104-108.
46. Waggoner W F, Ashton J J. Comparison of Kodak D-speed and E-speed x-ray film in detection of proximal caries. J Dent Child 1988; 55: 459-462.
47. Svenson B, Petersson A. Influence of different developing solutions and developing times on radiographic caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1990; 19: 157-160.
48. Grondahl H-G. Radiographic caries diagnosis and treatment decisions. Swed Dent J 1979; 3: 109-117.
49. Eliasson S, Lavstedt S, Wouters F, Östlin L. Quality of intraoral radiographs sent by private dental practitioners for therapy evaluation by the Social Insurance Office. Swed Dent J 1990; 14: 81-89.
50. Alcox R W, Jameson W R. Rapid dental x-ray film processor for selected procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1969; 78: 517-519.
51. Manson-Hing L R, Turgut E. Evaluation of film processing with concentrated solutions. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1973; 36: 280-286.
52. Patel J R. Densitometric evaluation of Soludent and GBX developers. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1985; 59: 107-109.
53. Rout C I, Cook C. Survey of dental radiography in general dental practice. J Dent 1982; 10: 12-16.
54. Szymkowiak L E, Sarll D W, Homer K. Some factors affecting the standards of radiography in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1995; 179: 168-174.
55. Fitzgerald G M. Dental roentgenography II. Vertical angulation, film placement and increased object film distance. J Am Dent Assoc 1947; 34: 160-170.
56. Pitts N B. Film-holding, beam-aiming and collimating devices as an aid to standardization in intra-oral radiography: a review. J Dent 1984; 12: 36-46.
57. Van Straaten F J, Van Aken J. The optimum circular field size for dental radiography with intraoral film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982; 54: 347-359.
58. Benn D K. New methods of diagnosing approximal caries and alveolar bone loss from bitewing radiographs. Proc Brit Soc Dent Maxillofac Radtol 1988; 3: 13-16.
59. Van der Stell P F, Ruttiman U E, Webber R L, Heemstra P. In vitro study into the influence of x-ray beam angulation on the detection of artificial caries defects on bitewing radiographs. Caries Res 1989; 23: 334-341.
60. Espelid I, Tviet A B, Haugejorden O, Riordan P J. Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985; 13: 26-29.
61. Kidd E A M, Joyston-Bechal S. Essentials of dental caries: the disease and its management. Bristol: Wright, 1987.
62. Nuttall N M, Pitts N B. Restorative treatment thresholds reported to be used by dentists in Scotland. Br Dent J 1990; 169: 119-126.
63. Puckett J B. A device for comparing roentgenograms of the same mouth. J Periodontol 1968; 39: 160-161.
64. Haugejorden O. A study of the methods of radiographic diagnosis of dental caries in epidemiologcal investigations. Acta Odontol Scand (Suppl) 1974; 32: 1-269.
65. Sewerin I. Frequency and distribution of proximal overlappings on posterior bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1981; 9: 69-73.
66. Svenson B. The influence of image quality on radiographic diagnosis of approximal caries. Swed Dent J (Suppl) 1991; 74: 1-62.
67. Rudolph D J, White S C. Film-holding instruments for intraoral subtraction radiography. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1988; 65: 767-772.
68. Kaffe I, Littner N M, Tanse A, Serebro L. Clinical evaluation of a bitewing film holder. Quint Int 1981; 4: 935-938.
69. Pitts N B, Hamood S S, Longbottom C. Initial development and in vitro evaluation of the HPL device for obtaining reproducible bitewing radiographs of children. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1991; 71: 625-634.
70. Rushton V E, Homer K. A comparative study of radiographic quality with five periapical techniques in general dental practice. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 37-45.
71. Brynolf I. Improved viewing facilities for better roentgenodiagnosis. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 808-811.
72. Haugejorden O, Slack G L. A study of intra-examiner error associated with recording of radiographic caries at different diagnostic levels. Acta Odontol Scand 1975; 33: 169-181.
73. Jensen T W. Image perception in dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1980; 9: 37-40.
74. Barr J H. The scope and limitations of roentgenography as a diagnostic procedure. Dent Clin N Am 1961; July: 379-389.
75. Manson-Hing L R. Vision and oral roentgenology. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol 1962; 15: 173-183.
76. Matsson O. A magnifying viewer for photofluoroscopic films. Acta Radiol 1953; 39: 412-414.
77. Backer Dirks O, Amerogen J van, Winkler K C. A reproducible method for caries evaluation. J Dent Res 1951; 30: 346-359.
78. Mileman P A, Purdell-Lewis D J, Weele L T van der. Variation in radiographic caries diagnosis and treatment decisions among university teachers. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1982; 10: 329-334.
79. Mileman P A, Purdell-Lewis D J, Weele L T van der. Effect of variation in caries diagnosis and degree of caries on treatment decisions by dental teachers using bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1983; 11: 356-362.
80. Mileman P A, Dummer P M H, Purdell-Lewis D J, Weele L T van der. Variation in caries diagnosis and restorative treatment decisions when using bitewing radiographs: a comparison between two dental schools. J Dent 1985; 13: 140-151.
81. Kay E J, Nuttall N M, Knill-Jones R. Restorative treatment thresholds and agreement in treatment decision-making. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992; 20: 265-268.
82. Shaw L, Murray J J. Inter-examiner and intra-examiner reproducibility in clinical and radiographic diagnosis. Int Dent J 1975; 25: 280-288.
83. Poulsen S, Bille J, Rugg-Gunn A J. Evaluation of a calibration trial to increase interexaminer reliability of radiographic diagnosis of approximal carious lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980; 8: 135-138.
84. Pitts N B. The use of film holding, beam collimating and aiming devices in bitewing radiography. A suggested design for routine and research use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1983; 12: 77-82.
85. Möller I J. Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of the incipient carious lesion. In: James PMC, Konig K E, Held H R (eds). Advances in fluoride research and dental caries prevention 4: pp67-72. Proceedings of the 12th Congress, 1966.