Repeat analysis of intraoral digital imaging performed by undergraduate students using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor: An institutional case study.
10.5624/isd.2017.47.4.233
- Author:
Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd YUSOF
1
;
Nur Liyana Abdul RAHMAN
;
Amiza Aqiela Ahmad ASRI
;
Noor Ilyani OTHMAN
;
Ilham WAN MOKHTAR
Author Information
1. Center of Oral Maxillofacial Diagnostic and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Selangor, Malaysia. yusmiaidil@salam.uitm.edu.my
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Radiography, Dental, Digital;
Radiographic Image Enhancement
- MeSH:
Calibration;
Gutta-Percha;
Health Services;
Humans;
Prevalence;
Radiation Protection;
Radiographic Image Enhancement;
Radiography, Dental, Digital;
Retrospective Studies;
Semiconductors*;
Students, Dental
- From:Imaging Science in Dentistry
2017;47(4):233-239
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
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 interobserver 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.
