Carmichael F A, Hirschmann P N, Scaife B, Sheard L, Mackenzie A
Department of Dental Radiology, Leeds Dental Institute Leeds, UK.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000 Jan;29(1):57-60. doi: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600495.
To compare the diagnostic utility of two screen-film systems for panoramic radiography, one based on green and the other on ultraviolet light.
Two hundred consecutive adult patients with teeth in all four quadrants requiring panoramic radiographs were randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group was imaged with OGA L (CEA AB, Strängnäs, Sweden) film using Lanex Regular (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) screens (the Lanex group). The other group was imaged using Ultra-Vision (Dupont UK Limited, Hertfordshire, UK) film and screens (the Ultra-vision group). Two different panoramic machines were used, a Planmeca (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland) and Cranex (Soredex Orion Corporation, Helsinki, Finland). The radiographs were evaluated by two radiographers for overall quality and any faults recorded. Two dental radiologists evaluated the crestal and apical areas of every standing tooth on a 4-point scale. The likelihood of getting a high-quality image with the different films was modelled using logistic regression, adjusting for the radiologist and the area of the tooth being examined. Inter- and intra-examiner agreement was calculated using Kappa and weighted Kappa where appropriate.
The radiographers recorded no significant differences in positioning errors between the two groups of film. However, the films produced on the Cranex were less likely to be recorded as excellent. The radiologists' interexaminer agreement for the lower molars and upper incisors was only moderate at best (kappa = 0.56). No significant differences were found between the likelihood of the two types of film providing a high-quality image. Crestal areas were more likely to be scored well than apical areas.
There were no differences in ease of discerning apical and crestal areas between the two screen-film systems. There was only poor to moderate agreement between the two radiologists. Ultra-Vision can be recommended as an alternative to existing rare earth systems for panoramic radiography.
比较两种用于全景X线摄影的增感屏-胶片系统的诊断效用,一种基于绿光,另一种基于紫外光。
连续200例全口四象限均有牙齿且需要拍摄全景X线片的成年患者被随机分为两组。一组使用OGA L(CEA AB,瑞典斯特朗奈斯)胶片及Lanex Regular(美国伊士曼柯达公司,纽约罗切斯特)增感屏进行成像(Lanex组)。另一组使用Ultra-Vision(英国杜邦有限公司,赫特福德郡)胶片及增感屏进行成像(Ultra-vision组)。使用了两台不同的全景X线机,一台Planmeca(芬兰Planmeca OY公司,赫尔辛基)和一台Cranex(芬兰索雷得克斯奥里恩公司,赫尔辛基)。由两名放射技师对X线片的整体质量进行评估并记录任何缺陷。两名牙科放射科医生对每颗存留牙齿的牙槽嵴顶和根尖区域进行4级评分。使用逻辑回归模型对使用不同胶片获得高质量图像的可能性进行建模,并对放射科医生和所检查牙齿的区域进行校正。在适当情况下,使用Kappa系数和加权Kappa系数计算检查者间和检查者内的一致性。
放射技师记录显示两组胶片在定位误差方面无显著差异。然而,在Cranex上生成的胶片被记录为优秀的可能性较小。放射科医生对下颌磨牙和上颌切牙的检查者间一致性充其量仅为中等(kappa = 0.56)。两种类型的胶片提供高质量图像的可能性之间未发现显著差异。牙槽嵴顶区域比根尖区域更有可能获得高分。
两种增感屏-胶片系统在辨别根尖和牙槽嵴顶区域的难易程度上没有差异。两名放射科医生之间的一致性仅为差到中等。Ultra-Vision可被推荐作为全景X线摄影现有稀土系统的替代方案。