Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Repeat analysis of intraoral digital imaging performed by undergraduate students using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor: An institutional case study

  • Yusof, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd (Center of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus) ;
  • Rahman, Nur Liyana Abdul (Center of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus) ;
  • Asri, Amiza Aqiela Ahmad (Center of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus) ;
  • Othman, Noor Ilyani (Center of Comprehensive Care Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus) ;
  • Mokhtar, Ilham Wan (Center of Comprehensive Care Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus)
  • Received : 2017.07.27
  • Accepted : 2017.10.10
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to quantify the repeat rate of imaging acquisitions based on different clinical examinations, and to assess the prevalence of error types in intraoral bitewing and periapical imaging using a digital complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor(CMOS) intraoral sensor. Materials and Methods: A total of 8,030 intraoral images were retrospectively collected from 3 groups of undergraduate clinical dental students. The type of examination, stage of the procedure, and reasons for repetition were analysed and recorded. The repeat rate was calculated as the total number of repeated images divided by the total number of examinations. The weighted Cohen's kappa for inter- and intra-observer agreement was used after calibration and prior to image analysis. Results: The overall repeat rate on intraoral periapical images was 34.4%. A total of 1,978 repeated periapical images were from endodontic assessment, which included working length estimation (WLE), trial gutta-percha (tGP), obturation, and removal of gutta-percha (rGP). In the endodontic imaging, the highest repeat rate was from WLE (51.9%) followed by tGP (48.5%), obturation (42.2%), and rGP (35.6%). In bitewing images, the repeat rate was 15.1% and poor angulation was identified as the most common cause of error. A substantial level of intra- and inter-observer agreement was achieved. Conclusion: The repeat rates in this study were relatively high, especially for certain clinical procedures, warranting training in optimization techniques and radiation protection. Repeat analysis should be performed from time to time to enhance quality assurance and hence deliver high-quality health services to patients

Keywords

References

  1. Pitcher EM, Wells PN. Quality assurance and radiologic audit. Curr Opin Radiol 1992; 4: 9-14.
  2. McKinney WE. Repeat exposures: our little secret. Radiol Technol 1994; 65: 319-20.
  3. Andersen ER, Jorde J, Taoussi N, Yaqoob SH, Konst B, Seierstad T. Reject analysis in direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 174-8. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110350
  4. Waaler D, Hofmann B. Image rejects/retakes - radiographic challenges. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139: 375-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq032
  5. Jones AK, Polman R, Willis CE, Shepard SJ. One year's results from a server-based system for performing reject analysis and exposure analysis in computed radiography. J Digit Imaging 2011; 24: 243-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9236-2
  6. Foos DH, Sehnert WJ, Reiner B, Siegel EL, Segal A, Waldman DL. Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals. J Digit Imaging 2009; 22: 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-008-9112-5
  7. Nol J, Isouard G, Mirecki J. Digital repeat analysis; setup and operation. J Digit Imaging 2006; 19: 159-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-8733-1
  8. Peer S, Peer R, Giacomuzzi SM, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001; 94: 69-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006482
  9. Hofmann B, Rosanowsky TB, Jensen C, Wah KH. Image rejects in general direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol Open 2015; 4: 2058460115604339.
  10. Rogers KD, Matthews IP, Roberts CJ. Variation in repeat rates between 18 radiology departments. Br J Radiol 1987; 60: 463-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-60-713-463
  11. Watkinson S, Moores BM, Hill SJ. Reject analysis: its role in quality assurance. Radiography 1984; 50: 189-94.
  12. Honea R, Elissa Blado M, Ma Y. Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Digit Imaging 2002; 15 Suppl 1: 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-002-5028-7
  13. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M. A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations. Br J Radiol 1999; 72: 653-60. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.72.859.10624322
  14. Lin CS, Chan PC, Huang KH, Lu CF, Chen YF, Chen YO. Guidelines for reducing image retakes of general digital radiography. Adv Mech Eng 2016; 8: 1687814016644127.
  15. Shi XQ, Benchimol D, Nasstrom K. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42:20130249. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130249
  16. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99: 485-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.002
  17. Mesgarani A, Haghanifar S, Ehsani M, Yaghub SD, Bijani A. Accuracy of conventional and digital radiography in detecting external root resorption. Iran Endod J 2014; 9: 241-5.
  18. Anas A, Asaad J, Tarboush K. A comparison of intra-oral digital imaging modalities: charged couple device versus storage phosphor plate. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2010; 4: 156-67.
  19. Dashpuntsag O, Yoshida M, Kasai R, Maeda N, Hosoki H, Honda E. Numerical evaluation of image contrast for thicker and thinner objects among current intraoral digital imaging systems. Biomed Res Int 2017; 2017: 5215413.
  20. Culmer PJ. Chesneys' care of patient in diagnostic radiography. 7th Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1995.
  21. Moores BM. Practical guide to quality assurance in medical imaging. Chichectser: Wiley; 1987.
  22. Clark CA. A method of ascertaining the relative position of unerupted teeth by means of film radiographs. Proc R Soc Med 1910; 3: 87-90.
  23. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004; 363: 345-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15433-0
  24. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277-84. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149
  25. Dunn MA, Rogers AT. X-ray film reject analysis as a quality indicator. Radiography (Lond) 1998; 4: 29-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1078-8174(98)80027-8
  26. Lau SL, Mak AS, Lam WT, Chau CK, Lau KY. Reject analysis: a comparison of conventional film-screen radiography and computed radiography with PACS. Radiography (Lond) 2004; 10: 183-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2004.03.014
  27. Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl M, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 1693-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050911
  28. Prieto C, Vano E, Ten JI, Fernandez JM, Iniguez AI, Arevalo N, et al. Image retake analysis in digital radiography using DICOM header information. J Digit Imaging 2009; 22: 393-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-008-9135-y
  29. Bin-Shuwaish M, Dennison JB, Yaman P, Neiva G. Estimation of clinical axial extension of Class II caries lesions with ultraspeed and digital radiographs: an in-vivo study. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 613-21. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-167
  30. Russo JM, Russo JA, Guelmann M. Digital radiography: a survey of pediatric dentists. J Dent Child (Chic) 2006; 73: 132-5.
  31. Fintelmann F, Pulli B, Abedi-Tari F, Trombley M, Shore MT, Shepard JA, et al. Repeat rates in digital chest radiography and strategies for improvement. J Thorac Imaging 2012; 27: 148-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0b013e3182455f36
  32. Tzeng WS, Kuo KM, Liu CF, Yao HC, Chen CY, Lin HW. Managing repeat digital radiography images - a systematic approach and improvement. J Med Syst 2012; 36: 2697-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-011-9744-8
  33. Wenzel A, Kirkevang LL. Students' attitudes to digital radiography and measurement accuracy of two digital systems in connection with root canal treatment. Eur J Dent Edu 2004; 8: 167-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00347.x
  34. Wenzel A, Moystad A. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systemic review. Acta Odontol Scand 2010; 68: 106-14. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016350903514426
  35. Wenzel A, Moystad A. Experience of Norwegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 203-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600613
  36. Berkhout W, Sanderink G, Van der Stelt PF. Does digital radiography increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 124-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/97410196

Cited by

  1. Effects of scanning parameters reduction in dental radiographs on image quality and diagnostic performance: A randomised controlled trial vol.48, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312520971641
  2. Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review vol.18, pp.15, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158076