The Subjective Image Quality of Conventional and Digital Panoramic Radiography Among 6 to 10 year old Children

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic quality of orthopantomographs made with the conventional unit Orthophos Siemens and the direct digital unit Planmeca 2000 cc Proline among children 6-10 years old and to investigate possible differences on image interpretation between oral radiologists and pediatric dentists.

Methods: Study material included two independent groups of panoramic images (50 in each group) made with different panoramic modalities (digital, conventional). Eight observers (four pediatric dentists and four oral radiologists) evaluated all images for diagnostic quality in 12 pre-determined areas using a 4-point rating scale.

Results: Digital and conventional panoramic radiography performed almost similarly as far as it concerns the specific diagnostic tasks rated with the exception of the interproximal contacts of mandibular molars where digital panoramic radiography was scored significantly higher and the periapical region of anterior mandible and anterior mandibular tooth germs where conventional panoramic radiography was found to be significantly better. Both oral radiologists and pediatric dentists graded similarly digital and conventional radiographs for a variety of diagnostic tasks.

Conclusions: It can be concluded that diagnostic image quality obtained with the digital orthopantomograph unit Planmeca 2000 cc Proline was generally equal to image quality obtained with the conventional orthopantomograph unit Orthophos Plus CD. Image interpretation between oral radiologists and pediatric dentists was not substantially different

Dental radiography; Panoramic radiography; Digital dental radiography; Radiographic image enhancement; Children

1. Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 3: 23-39, 2002.

2. Chen SK. Integration of the digital imaging and communications in medicine standard into an oral and maxillofacial image management and communication system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 91: 235-238, 2001.

3. Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Pauwels H, Jacobs R. Subjective image quality of digital panoramic radiographs displayed on monitor and printed on various hardcopy media. Clin Oral Investig 8: 25-29, 2004.

4. Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Wyatt J, Van Dam J, Nowak B, Jacobs R. Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiogra-phy. Br Dent J 197: 149-152; discussion 140, 2004.

5. Berkhout WE, Beuger DA, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33: 1-5, 2004.

6. Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Van der Stelt PF. Does digital radiogra-phy increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 32: 124-127, 2003.

7. Visser H, Rodig T, Hermann KP. Dose reduction by direct-digital cephalometric radiography. Angle Orthod 71: 159-163, 2001.

8. Visser H, Hermann KP, Bredemeier S, Kohler B. [Dose measurements comparing conventional and digital panoramic radiography]. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 4: 213-216, 2000.

9. Dannewitz B, Hassfeld S, Eickholz P, Muhling J. Effect of dose reduc-tion in digital dental panoramic radiography on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31: 50-55, 2002.

10. Dula K, Sanderink G, van der Stelt PF, Mini R, Buser D. Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in dig-ital panoramic radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 86: 227-233, 1998.

11. Kullendorff B, Nilsson M. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions. II. Effects on diagnostic accuracy after application of image processing. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 82: 585-589, 1996.

12. Gijbels F, Bou Serhal C, Willems G, Bosmans H, Sanderink G, Persoons M et al. Diagnostic yield of conventional and digital cephalo metric images: a human cadaver study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30: 101-105, 2001.

13. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt PF. An eval-uation of periapical radiography with a charge-coupled device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 27: 97-101, 1998.

14. Araki K, Endo A, Okano T. An objective comparison of four digital intra-oral radiographic systems: sensitometric properties and resolution. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 29: 76-80, 2000.

15. Naitoh M, Yuasa H, Toyama M, Shiojima M, Nakamura M, Ushida M et al. Observer agreement in the detection of proximal caries with direct digital intraoral radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 85: 107-112, 1998.

16. Khocht A, Janal M, Harasty L, Chang KM. Comparison of direct digi-tal and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting alveolar bone loss. J Am Dent Assoc 134: 1468-1475, 2003.

17. Borg E, Attaelmanan A, Grondahl HG. Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 29: 70-75, 2000.

18. Morner-Svalling AC, Tronje G, Andersson LG, Welander U. Comparison of the diagnostic potential of direct digital and convention-al intraoral radiography in the evaluation of peri-implant conditions. Clin Oral Implants Res 14: 714-719, 2003.

19. Syriopoulos K, Sanderink GC, Velders XL, van der Stelt PF. Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 29: 312-318, 2000.

20. Wallace JA, Nair MK, Abomr D, Colaco MF, Kapa SF. A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92: 93-97, 2001.

21. Paurazas SB, Geist JR, Pink FE, Hoen MM, Steiman HR. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital imaging by using CCD and CMOS-APS sensors with E-speed film in the detection of periapical bony lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89: 356-362, 2000.

22. Lehmann TM, Troeltsch E, Spitzer K. Image processing and enhance-ment provided by commercial dental software programs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31: 264-272, 2002.

23. Li G. Comparative investigation of subjective image quality of digital intraoral radiographs processed with 3 image-processing algorithms. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 97: 762-767, 2004.

24. Benediktsdottir IS, Hintze H, Petersen JK, Wenzel A. Accuracy of dig-ital and film panoramic radiographs for assessment of position and mor-phology of mandibular third molars and prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 32: 109-115, 2003.

25. Benediktsdottir IS, Wenzel A. Accuracy of digital panoramic images displayed on monitor, glossy paper, and film for assessment of mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98: 217-222, 2004.

26. Ramesh A, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB. Evaluation of a new digital panoramic system: a comparison with film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30: 98-100, 2001.

27. Gijbels F, De Meyer AM, Bou Serhal C, Van den Bossche C, Declerck J, Persoons M et al. The subjective image quality of direct digital and conventional panoramic radiography. Clin Oral Investig 4: 162-167, 2000.

28. Kaeppler G, Axmann-Krcmar D, Reuter I, Meyle J, Gomez-Roman G. A clinical evaluation of some factors affecting image quality in panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 29: 81-84, 2000.

29. Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Serhal CB, Pauwels H, Jacobs R. Organ doses and subjective image quality of indirect digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30: 308-313, 2001.

30. Farman TT, Farman AG. Clinical trial of panoramic dental radiography using a CCD receptor. J Digit Imaging 11: 169-171, 1998.

31. Molander B, Ahlqwist M, Grondahl HG. Image quality in panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 24: 17-22, 1995.

32. Arnold LV. The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Part II. The influence of viewing conditions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 64: 232-240, 1987.