Abstract
Objectives To determine the effect of viewing conditions upon diagnosis of early periapical inflammatory pathosis on intra-oral radiographs, and to examine the effect of observer experience upon diagnostic performance in this task.
Methods 50 observers examined 18 periapical radiographs using three different viewing conditions (room lighting; viewing box; viewing box with x2 magnification and masking). Their diagnoses were compared with an 'expert' diagnosis provided by repeated viewings of the films by two dental radiologists. Sensitivities and specificities were determined.
Results When 'ideal' viewing conditions were used, optimal sensitivity (78%) and specificity (78%) were obtained. Use of a viewing box was associated with significantly higher specificity than the use of room lighting (P = 0.0016). Use of masking and x2 magnification was associated with significantly higher sensitivity than a viewing box alone (P = 0.004). There were few significant differences in diagnostic performance between observers, but qualified dental staff had significantly higher specificities than 4th year (P = 0.01) and 5th year (P = 0.01) students when a viewing box was used alone.
Conclusions This study on early periapical inflammatory pathosis gives support to guidelines which recommend the use of a viewing box, x2 magnification and masking for interpreting intra-oral radiographs. It also suggests that observer experience may influence interpretation of early periapical pathosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Royal College of Radiologists and National Radiological Protection Board. Guidelines on radiology standards for primary dental care. Chilton: National Radiological Protection Board, 1994, Documents of the NRPB; 5: p24.
Pentel L, Goren A D, Shapiro G et al. A survey of dental x-ray equipment and radiological practices in Nassau County, New York. Health Phys 1971; 20: 59–71.
Rout P J, Cook C . Survey of dental radiography in general dental practice. J Dent 1982; 10: 12–16.
Kaugars G E, Broga G W, Collett W K . Dental radiologic survey of Virginia and Florida. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985; 60: 225–229.
Monsour P A, Kruger B J . X-ray equipment used by general dental practitioners in Australia. Aust Dent J 1988; 33: 81–86.
Szymkoviak L E, Sarll D W, Horner K . Some factors affecting the standards of radiography in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1995; 179: 168–174.
Wuehrmann A H . Radiation hygiene and its practice in dentistry as related to film viewing procedures and radiographic interpretation. J Am Dent Assoc 1970; 80: 346–356.
Brynolf I . Improved viewing facilities for better roentgenodiagnosis. Oral Surg 1971; 32: 808–811.
Welander U, McDavid W D, Higgins, N M et al. The effect of viewing conditions on the perceptibility of radiographic details. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983; 56: 651–654.
Antrim D D . Reading the radiograph: a comparison of viewing techniques. J Endod 1983; 9: 502–505.
Arnold L V . The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987; 64: 232–240.
Mattesson O . Aspects of interpretation of contrast and detail in radiographs. Acta Radiol 1952; 38: 477–88.
Robinson P J A . Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Rontgen image. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 1085–1098.
Mileman P A, van der Weele L T . Accuracy in radiographic diagnosis: Dutch practitioners and dental caries. J Dent 1990; 18: 130–136.
Kaffe I, Gratt B M . Variations in the radiographic interpretation of the periapical dental region. J Endod 1988; 14: 330–335.
Hartmann E, Stieve F-E . Quality control of radiographic illuminators and associated viewing equipment. In: Technical and Physical Parameters for Quality Assurance in Medical Diagnostic Radiology. BIR Report 18, pp 135–137. London: British Institute of Radiology, 1989.
British Institute of Radiology. Part M1.3(m): measurement of the variation in intensity in one illuminator or a bank of illuminators. In: Assurance of Quality in the Diagnostic X-ray Department. p57. London: British Institute of Radiology, 1988.
SPSS for Windows. Release 9. 1998 SPSS Inc.
StataCorp. 1995. Stata Statistical Software: Release 4.0. College Station, TX; Stata Corporation.
Siegel S, Castellan N . Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.
Wenzel A, Verdonschot E H . Some considerations in the evaluation of diagnostic tests in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 179–182.
Wenzel A, Hintze H . The choice of gold standard for evaluating tests for caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 132–136.
Jensen T W . Image perception in dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1980; 9: 37–40.
Jenkins R . Radiographic photography and imaging processing. In Jenkins R (ed) Identification, Presentation and Viewing of Radiographs. Chapter 11. London: Wiley, 1983.
Lazarchik D A, Firestone, Heaven T J et al. Radiographic evaluation of occlusal caries: effect of training and experience. Caries Res 1995; 29: 355–358.
Kay E J, Watts A, Paterson R C et al. Preliminary investigation into the validity of dentists' decisions to restore occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1988; 16: 91–94.
Kay E J, Knill-Jones R . Variation in restorative treatment decisions: application of receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992; 20: 113–117.
Goldman M, Pearson A H, Darzenta N . Endodontic success —— who's reading the radiograph? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972; 33: 432–437.
Goldman M, Pearson A H and Darzenta N . Reliability of radiographic interpretation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1974; 38: 287–293.
Reit C, Hollender L . Radiographic evaluation of endodontic therapy and the influence of observer variation. Scand J Dent Res 1983; 91: 205–212.
Reit C, Grondhahl H-G . Endodontic retreatment decision making among a group of general practitioners. Scand J Dent Res 1988; 96: 112–117.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the students and staff who participated in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Refereed Paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patel, N., Rushton, V., Macfarlane, T. et al. The influence of viewing conditions on radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation. Br Dent J 189, 40–42 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800596
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800596
This article is cited by
-
Quality of 'commercial-off-the-shelf' (COTS) monitors displaying dental radiographs
British Dental Journal (2013)
-
Restoration of the root-filled tooth: pre-operative assessment
British Dental Journal (2005)
-
Can we improve radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation?
British Dental Journal (2000)
