White S C, Hollender L, Gratt B M
J Dent Res. 1984 Jun;63(6):910-3. doi: 10.1177/00220345840630062101.
Xeroradiographs and Kodak Ektaspeed film were compared with Kodak Ultraspeed film for their ability to reveal periapical lesions. Cadaver specimens containing teeth which were normal or demonstrated periapical inflammatory disease were used as the test objects. These specimens were first radiographed using xeroradiographic plates or film. Following radiography, histologic analysis revealed the true presence or absence of disease. Ten oral radiologists scored all xeroradiographic and film images of the specimens for the presence of periapical disease. In general, the observers detected about 70% of the cases with periapical disease, while simultaneously considering about 10 to 15% of the normal surfaces to be abnormal. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis of the radiographic decisions revealed little difference in the diagnostic performance of the observers using the various image receptors, although both types of film and low-contrast xeroradiographs viewed in transmitted light were all more useful than low-contrast xeroradiographs viewed in reflected light. In terms of patient dose, both xeroradiographic images and Ektaspeed film are preferred over Ultraspeed film.
将干板X线片和柯达Ektaspeed胶片与柯达Ultraspeed胶片在显示根尖周病变的能力方面进行了比较。含有正常或表现出根尖周炎症疾病牙齿的尸体标本用作测试对象。这些标本首先使用干板X线片或胶片进行X线摄影。X线摄影后，组织学分析揭示疾病的真实存在与否。十位口腔放射科医生对标本的所有干板X线片和胶片图像进行根尖周疾病的评分。总体而言，观察者检测出约70%的根尖周疾病病例，同时将约10%至15%的正常表面视为异常。对X线摄影诊断结果进行的受试者操作特征（ROC）分析表明，使用各种图像接收器的观察者在诊断性能上几乎没有差异，尽管两种胶片以及透射光下观察的低对比度干板X线片都比反射光下观察的低对比度干板X线片更有用。在患者剂量方面，干板X线片图像和Ektaspeed胶片都比Ultraspeed胶片更可取。
