Imaging Science in Dentistry

  • 제52권1호
  • /
  • Pages.93-101
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2233-7822(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-7830(eISSN)
대한영상치의학회 (Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical comparison of intraoral CMOS and PSP detectors in terms of time efficiency, patient comfort, and subjective image quality

  • Kamburoglu, Kivanc (Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University) ;
  • Samunahmetoglu, Ercin (Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University) ;
  • Eratam, Nejlan (Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University) ;
  • Sonmez, Gul (Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Adakent University) ;
  • Karahan, Sevilay (Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University)
  • 투고 : 2021.09.23
  • 심사 : 2021.12.29
  • 발행 : 2022.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study compared the effectiveness of complementary metal-oxide semiconductors (CMOS) and photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates as intraoral imaging systems in terms of time efficacy, patient comfort, and subjective image quality assessment in real clinical settings. Materials and Methods: Fifty-eight patients (25 women and 33 men) were included. Patients were referred for a full-mouth radiological examination including 1 bitewing radiograph (left and right) and 8 periapical radiographs for each side (left maxilla/mandible and right maxilla/mandible). For each patient, 1 side of the dental arch was radiographed using a CMOS detector, whereas the other side was radiographed using a PSP detector, ensuring an equal number of left and right arches imaged by each detector. Clinical application time, comfort/pain, and subjective image quality were assessed for each detector. Continuous variables were summarized as mean±standard deviation. Differences between detectors were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance. P<0.05 was accepted as significant. Results: The mean total time required for all imaging procedures with the CMOS detector was significantly lower than the mean total time required for imaging procedures with PSP (P<0.05). The overall mean patient comfort scores for the CMOS and PSP detectors were 4.57 and 4.48, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The performance of both observers in subjectively assessing structures was significantly higher when using CMOS images than when using PSP images for all regions (P<0.05). Conclusion: The CMOS detector was found to be superior to the PSP detector in terms of clinical time efficacy and subjective image quality.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Hogan R, Goodwin M, Boothman N, Iafolla T, Pretty IA. Further opportunities for digital imaging in dental epidemiology. J Dent 2018; 74 Suppl 1: S2-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.018
  2. Vandenberghe B. The digital patient - imaging science in dentistry. J Dent 2018; 74 Suppl 1: S21-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.019
  3. Mouyen F, Benz C, Sonnabend E, Lodter JP. Presentation and physical evaluation of RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1989; 68: 238-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(89)90200-4
  4. Shetty A, Almeida FT, Ganatra S, Senior A, Pacheco-Pereira C. Evidence on radiation dose reduction using rectangular collimation: a systematic review. Int Dent J 2019; 69: 84-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12411
  5. Lurie AG. Doses, benefits, safety, and risks in oral and maxillofacial diagnostic imaging. Health Phys 2019; 116: 163-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000001030
  6. Mol A. Digital imaging. In: Mallya SM, Lam EW. White and Pharoah's oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018. p. 40-60.
  7. Rovaris K, de Faria Vasconcelos K, do Nascimento EH, Oliveira ML, Freitas DQ, Haiter-Neto F. Brazilian young dental practitioners' use and acceptance of digital radiographic examinations. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 239-44. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2016.46.4.239
  8. Snel R, Van De Maele E, Politis C, Jacobs R. Digital dental radiology in Belgium: a nationwide survey. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180045. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180045
  9. Svenson B, Stahlnacke K, Karlsson R, Falt A. Dentists' use of digital radiographic techniques: Part I - intraoral X-ray: a questionnaire study of Swedish dentists. Acta Odontol Scand 2018; 76: 111-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2017.1387930
  10. Yeung AW, Tanaka R, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. Awareness and practice of 2D and 3D diagnostic imaging among dentists in Hong Kong. Br Dent J 2020; 228: 701-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1451-8
  11. Thomas BL, Davies J, Whaites E. Shall I go digital? Dent Update 2014; 41: 314-26. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2014.41.4.314
  12. Korner M, Weber CH, Wirth S, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser MF, Treitl M. Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics 2007; 27: 675-86. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.273065075
  13. Jayachandran S. Digital imaging in dentistry: a review. Contemp Clin Dent 2017; 8: 193-4. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_535_17
  14. Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Davies AG. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 487-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.10.014
  15. Wenzel A, Moystad A. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 2010; 68: 106-14. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016350903514426
  16. Sanderink GC, Miles DA. Intraoral detectors. CCD, CMOS, TFT, and other devices. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 249-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-8532(22)01301-5
  17. Queiroz PM, Santaella GM, de Castro Lopes SL, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ. Characteristics of radiographic images acquired with CdTe, CCD and CMOS detectors in skull radiography. Imaging Sci Dent 2020; 50: 339-46. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2020.50.4.339
  18. Chiu HL, Wei YW, Wang WC, Chen YK. Simple and effective methods to protect the photostimulable phosphor storage plate sensor. J Dent Sci 2018; 13: 85-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2017.08.004
  19. Bahrami G, Hagstrom C, Wenzel A. Bitewing examination with four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 317-21. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14212871
  20. Matzen LH, Christensen J, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 566-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.10.002
  21. Jorgensen PM, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort in bitewing examination with film and four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 323-7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/73402308
  22. Goncalves A, Wiezel VG, Goncalves M, Hebling J, Sannomiya EK. Patient comfort in periapical examination using digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 484-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/82025587
  23. Borg E, Grondahl HG. On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 82-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0250-832X(95)00037-B
  24. Senel B, Kamburoglu K, Ucok O, Yuksel SP, Ozen T, Avsever H. Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 501-11. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28628723
  25. 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.
  26. Kamburoglu K, Tsesis I, Kfir A, Kaffe I. Diagnosis of artificially induced external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, and PSP: an ex vivo study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 885-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.01.005
  27. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  28. Hellen-Halme K, Johansson C, Nilsson M. Comparison of the performance of intraoral X-ray sensors using objective image quality assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: e129-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2016.01.016
  29. Okamura K, Yoshiura K. The missing link in image quality assessment in digital dental radiography. Oral Radiol 2020; 36: 313-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-019-00396-z
  30. Bird R, Donnell C. Making the grade. Br Dent J 2021; 230: 117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2677-9
  31. Farrier SL, Drage NA, Newcombe RG, Hayes SJ, Dummer PM. A comparative study of image quality and radiation exposure for dental radiographs produced using a charge-coupled device and a phosphor plate system. Int Endod J 2009; 42: 900-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01593.x
  32. Aydin KC, Demirel O, Ozcan M. Comparison of two digital intraoral radiography imaging systems as a function of contrast resolution and exposure time. Minerva Stomatol 2020; 69: 148-52.
  33. Aziman C, Hellen-Halme K, Shi XQ. A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20190063. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190063
  34. Thang TS, Kishen A, Moayedi M, Tyrrell PN, Zhao W, Perschbacher SE. The effects of physical photostimulable phosphor plate artifacts on the radiologic interpretation of periapical inflammatory disease. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 129: 621-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.11.001
  35. Ramamurthy R, Canning CF, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Time and motion study: a comparison of two photostimulable phosphor imaging systems used in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 315-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/29518441
  36. Kamburoglu K, Senel B, Yuksel SP, Ozen T. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of in vivo and in vitro photostimulable phosphor digital images in the detection of occlusal caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/91657756