Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 209–213 | Cite as

Effect of two X-ray tube voltages on detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs. An in vitro study

  • Kristina Hellén-HalmeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of two different tube voltages on clinicians’ ability to diagnose approximal carious lesions in digital radiographs. One hundred extracted teeth were radiographed twice at two voltage settings, 60 and 70 kV, using a standardized procedure. Seven observers evaluated the radiographs on a standard color monitor pre-calibrated according to DICOM part 14. Evaluations were made at ambient light levels below 50 lx. All observations were analyzed with receiver operating characteristic curves. A histological examination of the teeth served as the criterion standard. A paired t test compared the effects of the two voltages. The significance level was set to p < 0.05. Weighted kappa statistics estimated intra-observer agreement. No significant difference in accuracy of approximal carious lesion diagnosis was found between the two voltage settings. But five observers rated dentin lesions on radiographs exposed at 70 kV better than on radiographs exposed at 60 kV. Intra-observer agreement differed from fair to moderate. There was no significant difference in accuracy of approximal carious lesion diagnosis between digital radiographs exposed with 60 or 70 kV.

Keywords

Display monitor Digital radiography Dental caries ROC curve Kilo voltage 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hellén-Halme K, Petersson A, Nilsson M (2008) Effect of ambient light and monitor brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs. An in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:380–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD (1998) Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 27:293–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hellén-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A (2007) Digital radiography in general dental practice. A field study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:249–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutcher MJ, Kalathingal S, Ludlow JB, Abreu M Jr, Platin E (2006) The effect of lighting conditions on caries interpretation with a laptop computer in a clinical setting. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:537–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenzel A (1998) Digital radiography and caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 27:3–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hellén-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A (2009) Effect of monitors on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs-standard versus precalibrated DICOM part 14 displays: An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol EndodGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kullendorff B, Nilsson M, Rohlin M (1996) Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: overall comparison between conventional and direct digital radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 82:344–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wenzel A (2006) A review of dentists’ use of digital radiography and caries diagnosis with digital systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:307–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), Task Group 18 Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems. http://deckard.mc.duke.edu/∼samei/tg18. 2008-09-20
  10. 10.
    Berkhout WER (2007) Implementation of digital dental radiography. User aspects, radiation dose and diagnostic effects. Thesis. Academic Centre for Dentistry in Amsterdam, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svenson B, Gröndahl HG, Petersson A, Olving A (1985) Accuracy of radiographic caries diagnosis at different kilovoltages and two film speeds. Swed Dent J 9:37–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Svenson B, Petersson A (1991) Influence of tube voltage on radiographic diagnosis of caries in premolars and molars. Swed Dent J 15:245–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Poludniowski GG, Evans PM (2007) Calculation of X-ray spectra emerging from an X-ray tube. Part I. Electron penetration characteristics in X-ray targets. Med Phys 34:2164–2174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poludniowski GG (2007) Calculation of X-ray spectra emerging from an X-ray tube. Part II. X-ray production and filtration in X-ray targets. Med Phys 34:2175–2186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barten PGJ (1999) Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. Knegsel: HV Press. Proefschrift Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 1999. ISBN 90-90112613-9. NUGI 832Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    DICOM, Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine. http://medical.nema.org 2007-02-08. DICOM part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function.
  18. 18.
    Wenzel A, Hintze H (1999) The choice of gold standard for evaluating tests for caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28:132–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hintze H, Wenzel A (2003) Diagnostic outcome of methods frequently used for caries validation. A comparison of clinical examination, radiography and histology following hemisectioning and serial tooth sectioning. Caries Res 37:115–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kitagawa H, Farman AG (2004) Effect of beam energy and filtration on the signal-to-noise ratio of the Dexis intraoral X-ray detector. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Herz K, Reinert S (2007) Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:506–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Almeida SM, de Oliveira AE, Ferreira RI, Bóscolo FN (2003) Image quality in digital radiographic systems. Braz Dent J 14:136–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hayakawa Y, Farman AG, Scarfe WC, Kuroyanagi K, Rumack PM, Schick DB (1996) Optimum exposure ranges for computed dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 25:71–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grondahl HG (1979) Radiographic caries diagnosis. A study of caries progression and observer performance. Swed Dent J Suppl 3:1–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    WHO Oral Health Country/Area. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro/sweden/sweden.html 2008-06-12.
  30. 30.
    Swets JA, Pickett RM (1982) Evaluation of diagnostic systems: methods from signal detection theory. Academic, New York, pp 60–80Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hintze H, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A (2003) Influence of number of surfaces and observers on statistical power in a multiobserver ROC radiographic caries detection study. Caries Res 37:200–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial RadiologyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations