This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kitagawa, H Articles by Farman, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kitagawa, H Articles by Farman, A.

Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality

School of Dentistry, The University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

*Correspondence to: Dr Allan G Farman, Division of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Department of Surgical and Hospital Dentistry, University of Louisville, 501 South Preston Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA; Email: agfarm01{at}louisville.edu

Received 30 September 2003; revised 10 December 2003; accepted 10 December 2003

Objective: To compare the subjective image quality of the newer generation Schick CDR detector employing complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology with images using the earlier generation charge-coupled device (CCD) Schick CDR detector.

Methods: All radiographic images were made using the same formalin-fixed adult cadaver maxilla with surrounding natural soft tissues in place. The X-ray generator used was a Villa Sistemi Medicali Diamatic srl AP/Explor X operated at 70 kVp and 8 mA. The source-to-detector distance was set at 38 cm and an optical bench was used to ensure reproducible beam geometry. A range of exposures was applied for both detectors. A panel of nine dentists independently observed and evaluated images made at each exposure. For both detectors, the three images ranked highest were randomized for re-evaluation in panels of six images. Each image was repeated randomly a total of 10 times. Features chosen as observation points were: (1) proximal dental caries; (2) gingival soft tissues; (3) cortical bone; (4) root canal space; (5) root apices; (6) periodontal ligament space; and (7) endodontic instrument tip clarity. Comparisons were made by use of odds ratio analysis applying a 95% confidence level. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were computed to assess consistency in observer ratings.

Results: The CMOS sensor was rated as outperforming its CCD predecessor for depiction of cortical bone and root apices; the CCD detector was only rated superior for depiction of root canal space. No significant difference was found between the two detectors in perceived depiction of proximal dental caries, gingival soft tissues, periodontal ligament space or endodontic instruments. Combining rating scores from each of the tasks, CMOS and CCD detectors had a similar proportion of image ratings of excellent, acceptable and poor.

Conclusions: Regarding subjective image quality, the Schick CMOS and CCD detectors were perceived to produce radiographic images of similar overall quality.

Keywords: digital imaging; radiography, dental

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. G. Farman, C. M. Levato, D. Gane, and W. C. Scarfe In Practice: How Going Digital Will Affect the Dental Office J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2008; 139(suppl_3): 14S - 19S. [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]