The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 138, No 10, 1353-1359.
© 2007 American Dental Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haiter-Neto, F.
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haiter-Neto, F.
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Dental Equipment/Instruments

RESEARCH

JADA Continuing Education

A comparison of older and newer versions of intraoral digital radiography systems

Diagnosing noncavitated proximal carious lesions



Francisco Haiter-Neto, DDS, PhD, Andrea dos Anjos Pontual, DDS, Morten Frydenberg, MSc, PhD and Ann Wenzel, DDS, PhD, dr odont

Background. The authors conducted a study to compare the accuracy of an older and newer version of two intraoral digital systems in terms of radiographic detection of proximal carious lesions.

Methods. Under in vitro and standardized conditions, the authors obtained radiographs of 160 noncavitated proximal surfaces using the Digora FMX (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland), the Digora Optime, the Schick CDR (Schick Technologies, Long Island City, N.Y.) and the Schick CDR Wireless (Schick Technologies) systems. Eight observers recorded proximal carious lesions on a five-point confidence scale. The presence of caries was validated histologically.

Results. The new digital systems (Digora Optime and Schick CDR Wireless) had significantly higher sensitivities than their predecessors. The authors found no significant differences in specificity among the Digora FMX, Schick CDR and Schick CDR Wireless systems, all of which had a significantly higher specificity than did the Digora Optime system (P < .02). The positive predictive value for the Digora Optime system was affected by its high sensitivity and low specificity, and it was lower than that for the two CDR systems (P < .02).

Conclusions. Regarding overall accuracy, the difference between the older and newer versions of the photostimulable storage phosphor and complementary metal oxide semiconductor systems was not statistically significant. However, the authors found more false-positive diagnoses made with the Digora Optime system than with the Digora FMX system.

Clinical Implications. Though the difference in specificities was statistically significant, the authors question whether the difference between the Digora Optime and the other systems is clinically relevant. Therefore, dentists can purchase any of these systems after considering factors other than those evaluated in this study.

Key Words: Radiography; digital radiography; dental caries; proximal caries; caries diagnosis

Abbreviations: CCD: Charge-coupled device • CMOS: Complementary metal oxide semiconductor • CMOS-APS: Complementary metal oxide semiconductor–active pixel sensor • PSP: Photostimulable storage phosphor • TIFF: Tagged Image File Format • USB: Universal Serial Bus






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2007 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.