Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Type:||Artigo de periódico|
|Title:||Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs|
|Abstract:||Objectives: The aim was to compare the accuracy of Five flat panel monitors for detection of approximal caries lesions. Methods: Five flat panel monitors, Mermaid Ventura (15 inch, colour flat panel, 1024 x 768, 32 bit, analogue), Olorin VistaLine (19 inch, colour, 1280 x 1024, 32 bit, digital), Samsung SyncMaster 203B (20 inch, colour, 1024 x 768, 32 bit, analogue), Totoku ME251i (21 inch, greyscale,. 1400 x 1024, 32 bit, digital) and Eizo FlexScan M X 190 (19 inch, colour, 1280 x 1024, 32 bit, digital), were assessed. 160 approximal Surfaces of human teeth were examined with a storage phosphor plate system (Digora FMX, Soredex) and assessed by seven observers for the presence of caries lesions. Microscopy of the teeth served as validation for the presence/absence of a lesion. Results: The sensitivities varied between observers (range 7-25%) but the variation between the monitors was not large. The Samsung monitor obtained a significantly higher sensitivity than the Mermaid and Olorin monitors (P<0.02) and a lower specificity than the Eizo and Totoku monitors (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between any other monitors. The percentage of correct scores was highest for the Eizo monitor and significantly higher than for the Mermaid and Olorin monitors (P<0.03). Conclusions: There was no clear relationship between the diagnostic accuracy and the resolution or price of the monitor. The Eizo monitor was associated with the overall highest percentage of correct scores. The standard analogue flat panel monitor, Samsung, had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than some of the other monitors, but did not differ in overall accuracy For detection of carious lesions. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2009) 38, 537-541. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/21071028|
|Editor:||British Inst Radiology|
|Citation:||Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. British Inst Radiology, v. 38, n. 8, n. 537, n. 541, 2009.|
|Appears in Collections:||Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.