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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaeppler, G.
Right arrow Articles by Gomez-Roman, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaeppler, G.
Right arrow Articles by Gomez-Roman, G.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 29, Issue 2 81-84, Copyright © 2000 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

A clinical evaluation of some factors affecting image quality in panoramic radiography

G. Kaeppler, D. Axmann-Krcmar, I. Reuter, J. Meyle and G. Gomez-Roman
Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Tubingen, Germany.

AIM: To evaluate the suitability of panoramic radiographs obtained with two different machines for clinical use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three observers assessed 111 pairs of panoramic radiographs taken with the Scanora (Soredex, Orion Corp., Helsinki, Finland) programme 001, and the Orthophos Plus (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), programme P1 respectively, for visualisation of seven anatomical structures on each side, on a 5-point scale where 1 = very good. The median values were computed and a descriptive analysis performed. Interrater and intrarater agreement were expressed as weighted kappa. RESULTS: The median values of both Scanora and Orthophos radiographs were the same, scoring 2. The intra- and inter-observer agreement was generally poor and similar for both machines. CONCLUSIONS: The two panoramic machines were both given good ratings for evaluation of anatomical structures. The differences were very small and suggest that both machines are suitable for clinical use.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
G. Kaeppler, M. Buchgeister, and S. Reinert
Influence of the rotation centre in panoramic radiography
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, January 1, 2008; 128(2): 239 - 244.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
G Kaeppler, K Dietz, and S Reinert
The effect of dose reduction on the detection of anatomical structures on panoramic radiographs.
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2006; 35(4): 271 - 277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
I. Benediktsdottir, H Hintze, J. Petersen, and A Wenzel
Accuracy of digital and film panoramic radiographs for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars and prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2003; 32(2): 109 - 115.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
I. Benediktsdottir, H Hintze, J. Petersen, and A Wenzel
Image quality of two solid-state and three photostimulable phosphor plate digital panoramic systems, and treatment planning of mandibular third molar removal
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2003; 32(1): 39 - 44.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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