Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph: Film versus print

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 136, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 323-330

  Otis, Linda L ^a   Sherman, Robert C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b Navy Dental Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

Caries diagnoses; Copying processes; Ink jet printer; Paper; Receiving operating characteristic; statistic

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTAL CARIES; DENTIST; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENAMEL; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPER; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRINTING; RADIOGRAPHY; RECORDING; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

COPYING PROCESSES; DENTAL CARIES; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPER; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRINTING; RADIOGRAPHIC MAGNIFICATION; RADIOGRAPHY, BITEWING; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 17144428597     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0172     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Arnold LV. 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(2):232-40.
2. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. Effect of image magnification of digitized bitewing radiographs on approximal caries detection: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995;24(4):255-9.
3. Svanaes DB, Moystad A, Risnes S, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. Intraoral storage phosphor radiography for approximal caries detection and effect of image magnification: comparison with conventional radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82(1):94-100.
4. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, Lobach SR, van der Stelt PF. Reduction in size of digital images: does it lead to less detectability or loss of diagnostic information? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27(2):93-6.
5. Navarro M, Otis L. Video resolution requirements for novice observers for the diagnosis of dental-caries (abstract 1052). J Dent Res 1995;74:143.
6. Fleiss JS. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.
7. Fleiss JL, Fischman SL, Chilton NW, Park MH. Reliability of discrete measurements in caries trials. Caries Res 1979;13(1):23-31.
8. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148(3):839-43.
9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-74.
10. Abreu M Jr, Mol A, Ludlow JB. Performance of RVGui sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film for proximal caries detection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91(3):381-5.
11. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Noack MJ. Conventional, digital and contrast-enhanced bitewing radiographs in the decision to restore approximal carious lesions. Caries Res 2001;35(3):193-9.
12. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Frydenberg M. Accuracy of caries detection with four storage phosphor systems and E-speed radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31(3):170-5.
13. Hintze H, Wenzel A. Influence of the validation method on diagnostic accuracy for caries: a comparison of six digital and two conventional radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31(1):44-9.
14. Nair MK, Nair UP. An in-vitro evaluation of Kodak Insight and Ektaspeed Plus film with a CMOS detector for natural proximal caries: ROC analysis. Caries Res 2001;35(5):354-9.
15. White SC, Yoon DC. Comparative performance of digital and conventional images for detecting proximal surface caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26(1):32-8.
16. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27(5):293-7.
17. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28(4):203-7.
18. Lyttkens K, Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, et al. Evaluation of the image quality of ink-jet printed paper copies of digital chest radiographs as compared with film: a receiver operating characteristic study. J Digit Imaging 1994;7(2):61-8.
19. Svenson B, Welander U, Anneroth G, Soderfeldt B. Exposure parameters and their effects on diagnostic accuracy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78(4):544-50.
20. Svanaes DB, Moystad A, Larheim TA. Approximal caries depth assessment with storage phosphor versus film radiography: evaluation of the caries-specific Oslo enhancement procedure. Caries Res 2000;34(6):448-53.
21. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Jones C. In vitro comparison of D- and E-speed film radiography, RVG, and visualix digital radiography for the detection of enamel approximal and dentinal occlusal caries lesions. Caries Res 1994;28(5):363-7.
22. Verdonschot EH, Angmar-Mansson B, ten Bosch JJ, et al. Developments in caries diagnosis and their relationship to treatment decisions and quality of care: ORCA Saturday Afternoon Symposium 1997. Caries Res 1999;33(1):32-40.
23. Pitts NB. Diagnostic tools and measurements: impact on appropriate care. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25(1):24-35.
24. Stephenson TF, Lincoln AJ, Mehnert PJ, Paul GJ. Comparison of X-ray film and photographic paper in recording CT images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1984;8(6):1161-3.