Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210241

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)
Publication Information
Imaging Science in Dentistry / v.52, no.1, 2022 , pp. 93-101 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Radiography, Dental, Digital; Time and Motion Studies; Patient Comfort; Quality Control;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Davies AG. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 487-98.   DOI
2 Bahrami G, Hagstrom C, Wenzel A. Bitewing examination with four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 317-21.   DOI
3 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.
4 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.
5 Aziman C, Hellen-Halme K, Shi XQ. A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20190063.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 Snel R, Van De Maele E, Politis C, Jacobs R. Digital dental radiology in Belgium: a nationwide survey. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20180045.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 Goncalves A, Wiezel VG, Goncalves M, Hebling J, Sannomiya EK. Patient comfort in periapical examination using digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 484-8.   DOI
11 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.   DOI
12 Sanderink GC, Miles DA. Intraoral detectors. CCD, CMOS, TFT, and other devices. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 249-55.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Jorgensen PM, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort in bitewing examination with film and four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 323-7.   DOI
15 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.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 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.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 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.
23 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.   DOI
24 Vandenberghe B. The digital patient - imaging science in dentistry. J Dent 2018; 74 Suppl 1: S21-6.   DOI
25 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.   DOI
26 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.   DOI
27 Lurie AG. Doses, benefits, safety, and risks in oral and maxillofacial diagnostic imaging. Health Phys 2019; 116: 163-9.   DOI
28 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.   DOI
29 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.   DOI
30 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.   DOI
31 Thomas BL, Davies J, Whaites E. Shall I go digital? Dent Update 2014; 41: 314-26.   DOI
32 Bird R, Donnell C. Making the grade. Br Dent J 2021; 230: 117.   DOI
33 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.   DOI
34 Jayachandran S. Digital imaging in dentistry: a review. Contemp Clin Dent 2017; 8: 193-4.   DOI
35 Wenzel A, Moystad A. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 2010; 68: 106-14.   DOI
36 Okamura K, Yoshiura K. The missing link in image quality assessment in digital dental radiography. Oral Radiol 2020; 36: 313-9.   DOI