Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: A systematic review

References

• Wenzel A, Møystad A. Decision criteria and characteristics of Norwegian general dental practitioners selecting digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:197–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouyen F, Benz C, Sonnabend E, Lodter JP. Presentation and physical evaluation of RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;68:238–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horner K, Shearer AC, Walker A, Wilson NHF. RadioVisioGraphy: An initial evaluation. Br Dent J 1990;168:244–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludlow JB, Mol A. Digital imaging. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology. Principles and interpretation, 6th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2009. p. 78–99.
   Google Scholar
• Tsuchida R, Araki K, Endo A, Funahashi I, Okano T. Physical properties and ease of operation of a wireless intraoral x-ray sensor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:603–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gröndahl H-G, Wenzel A, Borg E, Tammisalo E. An image plate system for digital intraoral radiography–-The Digora. Dent Update 1996;23:334–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Farman TT, Farman AG. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:485–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A. Effect of varying gray-scale resolution on detectability of bone lesions in intraoral radiographs digitized for teletransmission. Scand J Dent Res 1987;95:483–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berkhout WER, Verheij JG, Syriopoulos K, Li G, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF. Detection of proximal caries with high-resolution and standard resolution digital radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:204–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Gotfredsen E. Influence of spatial resolution and bit depth on detection of small caries lesions with digital receptors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:418–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li G, Berkhout WER, Sanderink GC, Martins M, van der Stelt PF. Detection of in vitro proximal caries in storage phosphor plate radiographs scanned with different resolutions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:325–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heo MS, Han DH, An BM, Huh KN, Yi WJ, Lee SS, Effect of ambient light and bit depth of digital radiographs on observer performance in determination of endodontic file position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:239–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Kirkevang L-L. High resolution charge-coupled device sensor vs. medium resolution photostimulable phosphor plate digital receptors for detection of root fractures in vitro. Dent Traumatol 2005;21:32–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sanderink GCH. Imaging: new versus traditional technological aids. Int Dent J 1993;43:335–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Gröndahl H-G. Direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int Dent J 1995;45:27–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Versteeg CH, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF. Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent 1997;25:215–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saxe MJ, West DJ Jr. Incorporating digital imaging into dental hygiene practice. J Dent Hyg 1997;71:71–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A. Matters to consider when implementing direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int J Comput Dent 1999;2:269–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1379–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farman AG, Levato CM, Gane D, Scarfe WC. In practice: how going digital will affect the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139(Suppl):14S–19S.
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel A, Møystad A. Film and digital intraoral radiographic receptors (with an English summary). Danish Dent J 2009;113:6–16.
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel A, Møystad A. Experience of Norwegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:203–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenzel A, Kirkevang L-L. Students’ attitudes to digital radiography and measurement accuracy of two digital systems in connection with root canal treatment. Eur J Dent Educ 2004;8:167–71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Russo JM, Russo JA, Guelmann M. Digital radiography: a survey of pediatric dentists. Dent Child 2006;73:132–5.
   Google Scholar
• Ramamurthy R, Canning CF, Scheetz JP, Farman AG. Time and motion study: a comparison of two photostimulable phosphor imaging systems used in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:315–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lopes SL, Cruz AD, Ferreira RI, Bóscolo FN, Almeida SM. Image quality in partially erased DenOptix® storage phosphor plates. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:78–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayakawa Y, Shibuya H, Ota Y, Kuroyanagi K. Radiation dosage reduction in general dental practice using digital intraoral radiographic systems. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1997;38:21–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blendl C, Stengel C, Zdunczyk S. A comparative study of analog and digital intraoral x-ray image detector systems (with an English summary). Röfö 2000;172:534–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berkhout WER, Beuger DA, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:1–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bhaskaran V, Qualtrough AJ, Rushton VE, Worthington HV, Horner K. A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics. Int Endod J 2005;38:645–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonzalez L, Moro J. Patient radiation dose management in dental facilities according to the x-ray focal distance and the image receptor type. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:282–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Herz K, Reinert S. Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:506–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bahrami G, Hagstrøm C, Wenzel A. Bitewing examination with four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:317–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkhout WER, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF. Does digital radiography increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:124–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li G, van der Stelt PF, Verheij JG, Speller R, Galbiati A, Psomadellis F, End-user survey for digital sensor characteristics: a pilot questionnaire study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:147–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brady DT. Digital radiography: a survey of dentists in Hawai’i. Hawaii Dent J 2007;38:10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hellén-Halme K, Johansson PM, Håkansson J, Petersson A. Image quality of digital and film radiographs sent to the Dental Insurance Office in Sweden for treatment approval. Swed Dent J 2004;28:77–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Versteeg CH, Sanderink GCH, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt PF. An evaluation of periapical radiography with a charge-coupled device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998;27:97–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers TM, Mauriello SM, Ludlow JB, Platin E, Tyndall DA. Pre-clinical performance comparing intraoral film and CCD systems. Dent Hyg 2002;76:26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Matzen LH, Christensen J, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:566–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borg E, Gröndahl H-G. On the dynamic range of different x ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996;25:82–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borg E, Attaelmanan AG, Gröndahl HG. Image plate systems differ in physical performance. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:118–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bóscolo FN, Oliveira AE, Almeida SM, Haiter CF, Haiter-Neto F. Clinical study of the sensitivity and dynamic range of three digital systems, E-speed film and digitized film. Braz Dent J 2001;12:191–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oliveira AE, de Almeida SM, Paganini GA, Haiter-Neto F, Bóscolo FN. Comparative study of two radiographic storage phosphor systems. Braz Dent J 2000;11:111–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Søbye I, Andersen M, Erlendsson T. Dynamic range and contrast perceptibility in intraoral digital receptors (with an English summary). Danish Dent J 2007;14:1080–6.
   Google Scholar
• Borch V, Østergaard M, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Identification of errors particular for intraoral radiographs captured with digital receptors (with an English summary). Danish Dent J 2008;112:720–31.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen J, Matzen LH, Wenzel A. Effect of explaining the radiographic information to the patient before third molar surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; In press.
   Google Scholar
• Gürdal P, Hildebolt CF, Aknediz BG. The effects of different file formats and image-analysis software programs on dental radiometric digital evaluations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30:50–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Image compression in storing and communicating digital radiographs. Int J Comput Dent 2001;4:273–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siraquasa M, McDonnell DJ. Indirect digital images: limit of image compression for diagnosis in endodontics. Int Endod J 2002;35:991–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Borg E, Gröndahl H-G. Impact of lossy image compression (JPEG) on accuracy of caries detection in digital images taken with a storage phosphor system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;81:351–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eraso FE, Analoui M, Watson AB, Rebeschini R. Impact of lossy compression on diagnostic accuracy of radiographs for periapical lesions. Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:621–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janhom A, van der Stelt PF, Sanderink GC. A comparison of two compression algorithms and the detection of caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31:257–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janhom A, van der Stelt PF, van Ginkel FC, Geraets WG. Effect of noise on the compressibility and diagnostic accuracy for caries detection of digital bitewing radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:6–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schulze RK, Richter A, d’Hoedt B. The effect of wavelet and discrete cosine transfer compression of digital radiographs on the detection of subtle proximal caries. ROC analysis. Caries Res 2008;42:334–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koenig L, Parks E, Analoui M, Eckert G. The impact of image compression on diagnostic quality of digital images for detection of chemically-induced periapical lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:37–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fidler A, Skaleric U, Likar B. The effect of image content on detail preservation and file size reduction in lossy compression. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:387–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fidler A, Likar B, Skaleric U. Lossy JPEG compression: easy to compress, hard to compare. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:67–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mupparapu M. Contemporary, emerging, and ratified wireless security standards: an update for the networked dentist. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;15:174–85.
   Google Scholar
• Horner K, Brettle DS, Rushton VE. The potential medico-legal implications of computed radiography. Br Dent J 1996;180:271–3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsang A, Sweet D, Wood RE. Potential for fraudulent use of digital radiography. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1325–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bóscolo FN, Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F, Oliveira AE, Tuji FM. Fraudulent use of radiographic images. Forensic Odontostomatol 2002;20:25–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calberson FL, Hommez GM, de Moor RJ. Fraudulent use of digital radiography: methods to detect and protect digital radiographs. J Endod 2008;34:530–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Frandsen E, Hintze H. Patient discomfort and cross-infection control in bitewing examination with a storage phosphor plate and a CCD-based sensor. J Dent 1999;27:243–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bin-Shuwaish M, Dennison JB, Yaman P, Neiva G. Estimation of clinical axial extension of Class II caries lesions with Ultraspeed and digital radiographs: An in-vivo study. Oper Dent 2008;33:613–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chui HL, Lin SH, Chen CH, Wang WC, Chen JY, Chen YK, Analysis of photostimulable phosphor plate image artifacts in an oral and maxillofacial radiology department. Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:749–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts MW, Mol A. Clinical techniques to reduce sensor plate damage in PSP digital radiography. J Dent Child 2004;71:169–70.
   Google Scholar
• Bedard A, Davies TD, Angelopoulos C. Storage phosphor plates: How durable are they as a digital radiographic system? J Comtemp Dent Pract 2004;2:57–69.
   Google Scholar
• Aknediz BG, Gröndahl HG. Degradation of storage phosphor images due to scanning delay. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:74–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aknediz BG, Gröndahl HG, Kose T. Effect of scanning of storage phosphor plates. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:603–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ang DB, Angelopoulos C, Katz JO. How does signal fade on photo-stimulable storage phosphor imaging plates when scanned with a delay and what is the effect on image quality? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:673–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martins MGBQ, Whaites EJ, Ambrosano GMB, Haiter-Neto F. What happens if you delay scanning Digora storage phosphor plates (PSPs) for up to 4 hours? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006;35:143–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Negron W, Mauriello SM, Peterson CA, Arnold R. Cross-contamination of the PSP sensor in a preclinical setting. J Dent Hyg 2005;79:1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hokett SD, Honey JR, Ruiz F, Baisden MK, Hoen MM. Assessing the effectiveness of direct digital radiography barrier sheaths and finger cots. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:463–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hubar JS, Gardiner DM. Infection control procedures in conjunction with computed dental radiography. Int J Comput Dent 2000;3:259–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ludlow JB, Abreu Jr. M. M. Performance of film, desktop monitor and laptop display in caries detection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:26–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:203–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hellén-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Effect of monitors on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs–-standard versus precalibrated DICOM 14 display: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:716–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Isidor S, Faaborg-Andersen M, Hintze H, Kirkevang L-L, Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A. Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:537–41.
   Google Scholar
• Ilgüy M, Dincer S, Ilgüy D, Bayirli G. Detection of artificial occlusal caries in a phosphor imaging plate system with two types of LCD monitor versus three different films. J Digit Imaging 2009;22:242–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellén-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Digital radiography in general dental practice: a field study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:249–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hellén-Halme K, Petersson A, Warfvinge G, Nilsson M. Effect of ambient light and monitor brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:380–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutcher MJ, Kalathingal S, Ludlow JB, Abreu M Jr, Platin E. The effect of lighting conditions in caries interpretation with a laptop computer in a clinical setting. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:537–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze RK, Schulze D, Voss K, Rottner M, Keller HP, Dollmann K, Quality of individually calibrated customized printers for assessment of typical dental diagnoses on glossy paper prints: a multicenter pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:578–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Audit for extraoral radiographic examinations in a digital department. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:228–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar