DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carmichael, F. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mackenzie, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carmichael, F. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mackenzie, A.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 29, Issue 1 57-60, Copyright © 2000 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

A comparison of the diagnostic utility of two image receptors for panoramic radiography

F. A. Carmichael, P. N. Hirschmann, B. Scaife, L. Sheard and A. Mackenzie
Department of Dental Radiology, Leeds Dental Institute Leeds, UK.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic utility of two screen-film systems for panoramic radiography, one based on green and the other on ultraviolet light. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred consecutive adult patients with teeth in all four quadrants requiring panoramic radiographs were randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group was imaged with OGA L (CEA AB, Strangnas, Sweden) film using Lanex Regular (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) screens (the Lanex group). The other group was imaged using Ultra-Vision (Dupont UK Limited, Hertfordshire, UK) film and screens (the Ultra-vision group). Two different panoramic machines were used, a Planmeca (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland) and Cranex (Soredex Orion Corporation, Helsinki, Finland). The radiographs were evaluated by two radiographers for overall quality and any faults recorded. Two dental radiologists evaluated the crestal and apical areas of every standing tooth on a 4-point scale. The likelihood of getting a high-quality image with the different films was modelled using logistic regression, adjusting for the radiologist and the area of the tooth being examined. Inter- and intra-examiner agreement was calculated using Kappa and weighted Kappa where appropriate. RESULTS: The radiographers recorded no significant differences in positioning errors between the two groups of film. However, the films produced on the Cranex were less likely to be recorded as excellent. The radiologists' interexaminer agreement for the lower molars and upper incisors was only moderate at best (kappa = 0.56). No significant differences were found between the likelihood of the two types of film providing a high-quality image. Crestal areas were more likely to be scored well than apical areas. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in ease of discerning apical and crestal areas between the two screen-film systems. There was only poor to moderate agreement between the two radiologists. Ultra-Vision can be recommended as an alternative to existing rare earth systems for panoramic radiography.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2000 by the British Institute of Radiology.