DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Price, C.
Right arrow Articles by Ergul, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Price, C.
Right arrow Articles by Ergul, N.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 26, Issue 1 45-52, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

A comparison of a film-based and a direct digital dental radiographic system using a proximal caries model

C. Price and N. Ergul
Faculty of Dentistry, University of BC, Vancouver, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a dental radiographic film (Ektaspeed Plus) with the Sens-A-Ray direct digital imaging system using a proximal caries model. To study the effects of a scattering medium and compare the interpretations of dentists with dental students. METHODS: We used 20 extracted premolar and molar teeth with 10 sound and 15 naturally carious surfaces, and prepared artificial cavities in the remaining 15 surfaces. Seven dentists and seven senior dental students reported the presence of lesions using a five point confidence scale. We analysed our data by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and by obtaining sensitivities and specificities. RESULTS: ROC areas showed no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy achieved by dentists and dental students or by the addition of 20 mm of water as a scattering medium. A paler set of exposures produced significantly poorer diagnostic accuracy, but a darker set gave insignificant differences. Highly significant differences were found between the ROC areas for film and Sens-A-Ray and natural caries and artificial cavities, but the magnitudes of the differences were small. Sensitivities and specificities showed greater differences between methods and identified inferior interpretation of sound surfaces by students. CONCLUSIONS: Film was superior to Sens-A-Ray in the interpretation of proximal caries. The effects of a scattering medium were insignificant or trivial. Students were less reliable than dentists in the interpretation of sound surfaces but performed equally well with respect to natural caries and artificial cavities.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
V. Castro, J. Katz, P. Hardman, A. Glaros, and P Spencer
In vitro comparison of conventional film and direct digital imaging in the detection of approximal caries
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2007; 36(3): 138 - 142.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
G Kaeppler, K Dietz, and S Reinert
Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2007; 36(2): 68 - 74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
A. KHOCHT, M. JANAL, L. HARASTY, and K.-M. CHANG
Comparison of direct digital and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting alveolar bone loss
J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2003; 134(11): 1468 - 1475.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1997 by the British Institute of Radiology.