This Article Figures Only 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 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 Hellén-Halme, K Articles by Petersson, A Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hellén-Halme, K Articles by Petersson, A

Digital radiography in general dental practice: a field study

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

*Correspondence to: Kristina Hellén-Halme, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden; Email: kristina.hellen-halme{at}od.mah.se

Received 1 March 2006; revised 30 August 2006; accepted 17 September 2006

Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a field study to survey the performance of digital radiography and how it was used by dentists in general dental practice.

Methods: 19 general dental practitioners were visited at their clinics. Ambient light (illuminance) was measured in the rooms where the monitors were placed. Different technical display parameters were noted. Test images and two phantoms—one low-contrast phantom and one line-pair resolution phantom—were used to evaluate the digital system. How the dentists used the enhancement program was investigated by noting which functions were used.

Results: Average illuminance in the operating room was 668 lux (range 190–1250 lux). On radiographs of the low-contrast phantom taken at the clinic, the ability to observe the holes decreased as illuminance increased. On average, the "light percentage" initially set on the monitor had to be decreased by 17% and contrast by 10% to optimize the display of the test images. The general dental practitioners used the enhancement programs most often to alter brightness and contrast to obtain the subjectively best image. Large differences between the clinics were noted.

Conclusion: Knowledge of how to handle digital equipment in general dental practice should be improved. A calibrated monitor of good quality should be a given priority, as should proper ambient light conditions. There is a need to develop standardized quality controls for digital dental radiography.

Keywords: display monitor; enhancement program; digital radiography; quality

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. F. van der Stelt Better Imaging: The Advantages of Digital Radiography J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2008; 139(suppl_3): 7S - 13S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]