The impact of different viewing conditions on radiological file and working length measurement

Influence of different viewing conditions on the detection of fractured endodontic instruments using periapical radiographs at 3 projection angles

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the influence of ambient lighting levels and horizontal viewing angle (HVA) on the radiographic detection of fractured endodontic instruments in root canals in extracted human mandibular molars.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirty-two root canals were selected. Endodontic instrument fracture was induced in 24 canals, and all canals were endodontially treated. Periapical radiographs were obtained at orthoradial, mesioradial, and distoradial projection angles. Five oral radiologists examined the radiographs for detection of fractured endodontic instruments under 3 ambient lighting levels (high, 450 lux; medium, 28 lux; and low, 2.5 lux) and 3 HVAs (90°, 67.5°, and 45°). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared by 2-way analysis of variance using Tukey post hoc tests (α = .05).

RESULTS

AUROC data indicated that ambient lighting (P = .739) and HVA (P = .238) did not significantly influence the detection of fractured endodontic instruments. Overall mean diagnostic values were 0.745, 0.57, 0.46, and 0.90 for AUROC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The viewing conditions assessed in this study did not influence the radiographic detection of fractured endodontic instruments in root canals.

Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments

OBJECTIVES

To assess the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment in different room lighting conditions and image display devices.

METHODS

After approval by Research Ethical Board, 20 images were obtained from blocks with one endodontically treated tooth. Of the 20 endodontic treatments conducted in the laboratory, of those the randomly selected 10 teeth (50% of sample) received some quality defect in three parameters-apical limit, adaptation to root canal and homogeneity of the root canal filling material. Digital radiographs (DIGORA® Optime, Soredex, Milwaukee, WI) were obtained, which were evaluated (8 times) by 10 observers in two different conditions of room lighting, with bright (1000 to 1200 lux) and dim light (25 to 50 lux), using two different image display devices, smartphones and laptop computers. The observers assessed the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment with respect to quality of each one of three parameters individually. The data of observers' responses in terms of the quality of each parameter were statistically compared using Cronbach's α coefficient, diagnostic tests, π coefficient and ANOVA with Tukey tests, at a significant level setting of 5% (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The mean of reliability of observer responses ranged from 0.89 (intra-evaluator) to 0.66 (inter-evaluator). The mean values of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area were 0.661 (PD = 0.098), with laptop in bright lighting appraising homogeneity of the root canal filling material on the worst performance (ROC area = 0.57), which was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and 0.81 with laptop in dim lighting appraising apical limit on the best performance. Differences (p < 0.05) occurred mainly among parameters used for assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Room lighting and image display devices have very little influence in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment. Thus, we suggest the use of smartphones as an acceptable image display device in daily clinical practice in routine bright lighting conditions.

Image quality evaluation of eight complementary metal-oxide semiconductor intraoral digital X-ray sensors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the image quality generated by eight commercially available intraoral sensors.

METHODS

Eighteen clinicians ranked the quality of a bitewing acquired from one subject using eight different intraoral sensors. Analytical methods used to evaluate clinical image quality included the Visual Grading Characteristics method, which helps to quantify subjective opinions to make them suitable for analysis.

RESULTS

The Dexis sensor was ranked significantly better than Sirona and Carestream-Kodak sensors; and the image captured using the Carestream-Kodak sensor was ranked significantly worse than those captured using Dexis, Schick and Cyber Medical Imaging sensors. The Image Works sensor image was rated the lowest by all clinicians. Other comparisons resulted in non-significant results.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the sensors was considered to generate images of significantly better quality than the other sensors tested. Further research should be directed towards determining the clinical significance of the differences in image quality reported in this study.