In vitro comparison of digital and conventional bitewing radiographs for the detection of approximal caries in primary teeth exposed and viewed by a new wireless handheld unit

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 91-94

  Ulusu, T ^a   Bodur, H ^a   Odabaş, Mesut Enes ^a  

^a GAZI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Approximal caries; Bitewing radiographs; Handheld unit; Primary teeth; Receiver operating characteristic curve

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL CARIES; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MICROCOMPUTER; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; DATA DISPLAY; DENTAL CARIES; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHY, BITEWING; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;

EID: 75949116207     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/15182314     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 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: 193-199.
2. Li G, van der Stelt PF, Verheij JG, Speller R, Galbiati A, Psomadellis F, et al. End-user survey for digital sensor characteristics: a pilot questionnaire study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 147-151.
3. Syriopoulos K, Sanderink GC, Velders XL, van der Stelt PF. Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 312-318.
4. Hintze H, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A. Influence of number of surfaces and observers on statistical power in a multiobserver ROC radiographic caries detection study. Caries Res 2003; 37: 200-205.
5. Castro VM, Katz JO, Hardman PK, Glaros AG, Spencer P. In vitro comparison of conventional film and direct digital imaging in the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 138-142.
6. Naitoh M, Yuasa H, Toyama M, Shiojima M, Nakamura M, Ushida M, et al. Observer agreement in the detection of proximal caries with direct digital intraoral radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85: 107-112.
7. 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: 44-49.
8. Chadwick BL, Dummer PH. Factors affecting the diagnostic quality of bitewing radiographs: a review. Br Dent J 1998; 184: 80-84.
9. Pitts NB. 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.
10. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. The effect of cathode ray tube display format on observer performance in dental digitized radiography: comparison with plain films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 206-210.
11. Hellén-Halme K. Quality aspects of digital radiography in general dental practice. Swed Dent J Suppl 2007;9-60.
12. Ohki M, Okano T, Nakamura T. Factors determining the diagnostic accuracy of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 77-82.
13. 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: 381-385. (Pubitemid 33608862)
14. Wenzel A, Hintze H, Mikkelsen L, Mouyen F. Radiographic detection of occlusal caries in noncavitated teeth. A comparison of conventional film radiographs, digitized film radiographs, and RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991; 72: 621-626.
15. White SC, Yoon DC. Comparative performance of digital and conventional images for detecting proximal surface caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26: 32-38.
16. Price C, Ergül N. A comparison of a film-based and a direct digital dental radiographic system using a proximal caries model. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26: 45-52.
17. Dagenais ME, Clark BG. Receiver operating characteristics of RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 79: 238-245.