Imaging Sci Dent.  2017 Dec;47(4):233-239. 10.5624/isd.2017.47.4.233.

Repeat analysis of intraoral digital imaging performed by undergraduate students using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor: An institutional case study

• Yusof MY
• Rahman NL
• Asri AA
• Othman NI
• Wan Mokhtar I

• KMID: 2397837
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2017.47.4.233

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.

Keyword

Radiography, Dental, Digital; Radiographic Image Enhancement

MeSH Terms

Calibration
Gutta-Percha
Health Services
Humans
Prevalence
Radiation Protection
Radiographic Image Enhancement
Radiography, Dental, Digital
Retrospective Studies
Semiconductors*
Students, Dental
Gutta-Percha

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 A. Images taken on first examination. B. Repeat due to inadequate clearance of periapical lesion on endodontically-treated tooth.

• 

  Fig. 2 Percentages of repeat rates of intraoral images according to procedure and student year in dental school.

Reference

1. Pitcher EM, Wells PN. Quality assurance and radiologic audit. Curr Opin Radiol. 1992; 4:9–14.

2. McKinney WE. Repeat exposures: our little secret. Radiol Technol. 1994; 65:319–320.

3. Andersen ER, Jorde J, Taoussi N, Yaqoob SH, Konst B, Seierstad T. Reject analysis in direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol. 2012; 53:174–178.

4. Waaler D, Hofmann B. Image rejects/retakes - radiographic challenges. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010; 139:375–379.

5. Jones AK, Polman R, Willis CE, Shepard SJ. One year’s results from a server-based system for performing reject analysis and exposure analysis in computed radiography. J Digit Imaging. 2011; 24:243–255.

6. Foos DH, Sehnert WJ, Reiner B, Siegel EL, Segal A, Waldman DL. Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals. J Digit Imaging. 2009; 22:89–98.

7. Nol J, Isouard G, Mirecki J. Digital repeat analysis; setup and operation. J Digit Imaging. 2006; 19:159–166.

8. Peer S, Peer R, Giacomuzzi SM, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2001; 94:69–71.

9. Hofmann B, Rosanowsky TB, Jensen C, Wah KH. Image rejects in general direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol Open. 2015; 4:2058460115604339.

10. Rogers KD, Matthews IP, Roberts CJ. Variation in repeat rates between 18 radiology departments. Br J Radiol. 1987; 60:463–468.

11. Watkinson S, Moores BM, Hill SJ. Reject analysis: its role in quality assurance. Radiography. 1984; 50:189–194.

12. Honea R, Elissa Blado M, Ma Y. Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography? J Digit Imaging. 2002; 15:Suppl 1. 41–52.

13. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M. A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations. Br J Radiol. 1999; 72:653–660.

14. Lin CS, Chan PC, Huang KH, Lu CF, Chen YF, Chen YO. Guidelines for reducing image retakes of general digital radiography. Adv Mech Eng. 2016; 8:1687814016644127.

15. Shi XQ, Benchimol D, Näsström K. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42:20130249.

16. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 99:485–489.

17. Mesgarani A, Haghanifar S, Ehsani M, Yaghub SD, Bijani A. Accuracy of conventional and digital radiography in detecting external root resorption. Iran Endod J. 2014; 9:241–245.

18. 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; 4:156–167.

19. Dashpuntsag O, Yoshida M, Kasai R, Maeda N, Hosoki H, Honda E. Numerical evaluation of image contrast for thicker and thinner objects among current intraoral digital imaging systems. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017:5215413.

20. Culmer PJ. Chesneys' care of patient in diagnostic radiography. 7th Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science;1995.

21. Moores BM. Practical guide to quality assurance in medical imaging. Chichectser: Wiley;1987.

22. Clark CA. A method of ascertaining the relative position of unerupted teeth by means of film radiographs. Proc R Soc Med. 1910; 3:87–90.

23. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004; 363:345–351.

24. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2277–2284.

25. Dunn MA, Rogers AT. X-ray film reject analysis as a quality indicator. Radiography (Lond). 1998; 4:29–31.

26. Lau SL, Mak AS, Lam WT, Chau CK, Lau KY. Reject analysis: a comparison of conventional film-screen radiography and computed radiography with PACS. Radiography (Lond). 2004; 10:183–187.

27. Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl M, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol. 1999; 9:1693–1696.

28. Prieto C, Vano E, Ten JI, Fernandez JM, Iniguez AI, Arevalo N, et al. Image retake analysis in digital radiography using DICOM header information. J Digit Imaging. 2009; 22:393–399.

29. Bin-Shuwaish M, Dennison JB, Yaman P, Neiva G. Estimation of clinical axial extension of Class II caries lesions with ultraspeed and digital radiographs: an in-vivo study. Oper Dent. 2008; 33:613–621.

30. Russo JM, Russo JA, Guelmann M. Digital radiography: a survey of pediatric dentists. J Dent Child (Chic). 2006; 73:132–135.

31. Fintelmann F, Pulli B, Abedi-Tari F, Trombley M, Shore MT, Shepard JA, et al. Repeat rates in digital chest radiography and strategies for improvement. J Thorac Imaging. 2012; 27:148–151.

32. Tzeng WS, Kuo KM, Liu CF, Yao HC, Chen CY, Lin HW. Managing repeat digital radiography images - a systematic approach and improvement. J Med Syst. 2012; 36:2697–2704.

33. Wenzel A, Kirkevang LL. Students' attitudes to digital radiography and measurement accuracy of two digital systems in connection with root canal treatment. Eur J Dent Edu. 2004; 8:167–171.

34. Wenzel A, Møystad A. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systemic review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010; 68:106–114.

35. Wenzel A, Møystad A. Experience of Norwegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30:203–208.

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