Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 29, Issue 4 216-222, Copyright © 2000 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparison of observer performance in determining the position of endodontic files with physical measures in the evaluation of dental X-ray imaging systems

R. H. Vandre, J. C. Pajak, H. Abdel-Nabi, T. T. Farman and A. G. Farman
US Army Medical Research & Material Command, Ft. Detrick, Maryland, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of substituting observers determining the accuracy of endodontic measurements for measurements of physical qualities in comparison of digital imaging systems. METHODS: Sensors from six digital imaging systems were compared for signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), modulation transfer function (MTF) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE). A total of 45 canals in teeth from human cadavers were instrumented to their apical foramina. Endodontic files, ranging in size from size 8 to size 20, were glued in place at random distances from the apical foramina spanning a range of +/- 3 mm. The teeth were imaged with the six digital systems and dental X-ray film. Fifteen dentists independently measured the distance from the end of the file to the apical foramen. Results were expressed as the measurement error. Measurement error was compared to SNR, MTF and DQE for each digital system. RESULTS: CDR (Schick, New York, NY, USA), Digora (Sordex, Helsinki, Finland) and Dexis (Provision Dental Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) produced the highest SNR values followed closely by RVG-4 (Trophy, Croissy-Beavborg, France). Sens-A-Ray (Dent-X/Regam Medical Systems, Sundsvall, Sweden), Dexis and the RVG-4 produced the best MTF results. Dexis had the greatest DQE. The mean measurement errors (in mm) were: Film 0.65, Dexis 0.69, CDR 0.71, RVG-4 0.74, Digora 0.89, Sens-A-Ray 0.97, and Visualix-2 (Gendex, Monza, Italy) 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: Digital systems closely approximate film in their accuracy when used for endodontic measurement providing that the assessment instruments have similar resolving power. DQE was the best physical predictor of system accuracy when compared with endodontic length measurements. MTF and SNR alone did not accurately predict observer precision.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G Li, W E R Berkhout, G C H Sanderink, M Martins, and P F van der Stelt Detection of in vitro proximal caries in storage phosphor plate radiographs scanned with different resolutions Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., September 1, 2008; 37(6): 325 - 329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. F. VAN DER STELT Filmless imaging: The uses of digital radiography in dental practice J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2005; 136(10): 1379 - 1387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Digitized conventional radiograph Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2004; 33(6): 420 - 421. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H Kitagawa, J. Scheetz, and A. Farman Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2003; 32(6): 408 - 411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Digital radiograph system J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2002; 133(11): 1560 - 1561. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Digital X-Ray System J Am Dent Assoc, May 1, 2001; 132(5): 680 - 680. [Full Text] [PDF]