| Abstrakt: |
Objective: To compare the diagnostic utility of two screen-film systems for panoramic radiography, one based on green and the other on ultraviolet light. Materials and methods: 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 4point 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Plný text