Diagnosis of dental caries: A comparison of three radiograph viewing techniques

Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 235-245

  Ramanathan, Guru P ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL CARIES; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

CHILD; DENTAL CARIES; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC MAGNIFICATION; RADIOGRAPHY, BITEWING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0033084687     PISSN: 10534628     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Edward S, Fjellstrom A, Henrikson CO, Nord CK. A comparative study of clinical and roentgenological recording of proximal caries in primary molars of preschool children. Odont. Revy 24: 317-324, 1973.
2. Stecksen-Blicks C, Wahlin YB. Diagnosis of approximal caries in pre-school children. Swed Dent J 7: 179-84, 1983.
3. Pitts NB. Systems for grading approximal carious lesions and overlaps diagnosed from bitewing radiographs. Proposals for future standardizations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 12: 114-22, 1984.
4. White SC, McMullin K. Comparision of xeraoradiographs and two types of film for detecting caries in approximal surfaces of primary teeth. Caries Res 20: 444-450, 1986.
5. Kidd E., Pitts NB. A reappraisal of the value of the bitewing radiograph in the diagnosis of posterior approximal caries. Brit Dent J 169: 195-200, 1990.
6. White SC, Hollender L, Gratt BM. Comparison of xeroradiographs and film for detection of proximal surface caries. J Am Dent Assoc 108: 755-9, 1984.
7. Gratt BM, White SC, Lucatorto FM, Sapp JP, Kaffe I. A clinical comparison of xeroradiography and conventional film for the interpretation of periapical structures. J Endondont 12: 346-351, 1986.
8. White SC. Caries detection with xeroradiographs: The influence of observer experience. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 64: 118-122, 1987.
9. Mitropoulos CM. The use of fibre-optic transillumination in the diagnosis of posterior approximal caries in clinical trials. Caries Res 19: 379-384, 1985.
10. Mitropoulos CM. A comparision of fibre-optic transillumination with bitewing radiographs. Br Dent J. 21: 159-161, 1985.
11. Purdell-Lewis DJ, Pot T. A comparison of radiographic and fibre-optic diagnosis of approximal caries lesions. J Dent 2: 143-148, 1982.
12. Stephen KW, Russell JI, Burchell CK. Comparison of fibre-optic transillumination with clinical and radiographic caries diagnosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 15: 90-94, 1987.
13. Petersson A.R., Petersson K., Krasny R., Gratt Barton. Observe variations in the interpretation of periapical osseous structures: A comparison between Xeroradiography and conventional radiography. J Endodont 10: 205-209, 1984.
14. Kashima I, Grat BM, White SC. Power spectrum method used for comparing film and xeroradiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 14: 25-30, 1985.
15. Peltola J, Wolf J. Fibre optics transillumination in caries diagnosis. Proc Finn Dent Soc 77: 240-244, 1981.
16. Hefferren. A review of approaches to the detection of dental caries. JADA. 86: 1358-1364, 1973.
17. Wenzel A, Pitts N., Veronschot E.H., Kalsbeek H. Developments in radiographic caries diagnosis. J. Dent. 21:131-140, 1993.
18. Cheyne VD, Horne EV. The value of roentgenograph in the detection of carious lesions. J Dent Res 27: 59-67, 1948.
19. Smith RK. The x-ray - an essential to diagnosis and prognosis of the child patient. JADA 29: 796-804, 1942.
20. Pitts NB. The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiology 25: 5-16, 1996.
21. Pitts NB, Kidd EA. Some of the factors to be considered in the prescription and timing of bitewing radiography in the diagnosis and management of dental caries. J Dent 20: 74-84, 1992.
22. Brynolf I. Improved viewing facilities for better roentgenodiagnosis. Oral Surg 32: 808-811, 1971.
23. Nysether S, Hansen BF. Errors on dental bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 11: 286-288, 1983.
24. Eselman JC. Is the evidence on the radiograph reliable? J Dent Med 11: 216-218, 1956.
25. Haugejorden O. A study of the methods of radiological diagnosis of dental caries in epidemiological investigations. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica - Supplementum. 32: 1-269, 1974.
26. Waggoner WF, Crall JJ. A study of the carious lesion utilizing radiography, polarized light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Quintessence International 11: 1163-1174, 1984.
27. Mileman PA, Purdell-Lewis DJ, Van Der Weele LT, Leertouwer HL. Diagnostic variation caused by differences in view box illumination and visual ability. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 13: 51-58, 1984.
28. Jensen ThW, Image perception in dental radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 9: 37-40, 1980.
29. Klein D. Diagnosing interproximal caries using wet radiographs without a view box. Quintessence International 10: 107-109, October 1979.
30. Weisman MI. A superior magnifier for viewing radiographs. J Endodont 6: 885, 1980.
31. Antrim DD. Reading the radiograph: A comparison of viewing techniques. J Endodont 9: 502-505, 1983.
32. Blesser B, Ozonoff D. A model for the radiologic process. Radiology 103: 515-521, 1972.
33. Grondahl H. Some factors influencing observer performance in radiographic caries diagnosis. Swed Dent J 3: 157-172, 1979.
34. Buchholz RE. Radiographic interpretation of proximal carious lesions. Dental radiography and photography. 38: 9-12, 1965.
35. Alter A, Kargas GA, Kargas SA, Cameron JR, McDErmott JC. The influence of ambient and view box light upon visual detection of low contrast targets in a radiograph. Invest Radiol 17: 402-406, 1982.
36. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Reliability of radiographic interpretations. Oral Surg 38: 287-293, 1974.
37. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Endondontic Success - Who's reading the radiograph? Oral Surg. 33: 432-437, 1972.
38. Ruiken HMHM, Truin GJ, Konig KG, Elvers JWH. An evaluation of agreement between clinical and radiographical diagnosis of approximal carious lesions. Caries Res 20: 451-457, 1986.
39. Haugejorden O, Slack GL. A study of intra-examiner error associated with recording radiographic caries at different diagnostic levels. Acta Odont. Scand. 33: 169-181, 1975.
40. Gelfand M, Sunderman EJ, Goldman M. Reliability of radiographical interpretations. J Endodont 9: 71-75, 1983.
41. Reit C. The influence of observer calibration on radiographic periapical diagnosis. Int J Endodont 20: 75-81, 1987.
42. Pitts N. Detection and measurements of approximal radiolucencies by computer-aided image analysis. Oral Surg. 58: 358-366, 1984.
43. Shearer AC, Pitts NB, Wilson NH, Hutton JB, Wastell DG. Image analysis of radiolucencies in approximal enamel: a comparison of xeroradiographic and conventional film images. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology 67: 453-8, 1989.
44. Klein AI. Clinical television instrumentation. JADA 74: 1210-1219, 1967.
45. Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A, Grondahl HG. Observers' use of image enhancement in assessing caries in radiographs taken by four intra-oral digital systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 25: 34-38, 1996.
46. Dagenais ME, Clark BG. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 79: 238-245, 1995.
47. Wenzel A. New caries diagnostic methods. J Dent Edu 57: 428-432, 1993.
48. Shrout MK, Russell CM, Potter BJ, Powell BJ, Hildebolt CF. digital enhancement of radiographs: can it improve caries diagnosis? JADA 127: 469-473, 1996.
49. Ie YL, Verdonschot EH. Performance of diagnostic systems in occlusal caries detection compared. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 22: 187-191, 1994.
50. Marthaler TM. A standardized system of recording dental conditions. Helv Odont Acta 10: 1-18, 1966.