Search

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess observers' preference for standard screens (SSs) or medical displays (MDs) in visualizing difficult-to-diagnose radiographic dental abnormalities and their preference for dental filter tools when utilized with MD systems. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective data set of 60 in vivo radiographs consisting of intraoral (n = 20), panoramic (n = 20), and cone beam computed tomography (n = 20) images was created. Three image display monitors, including an SS, an MD, and an MD with 3 dental filter configurations (bone-low density enhancement filter, tooth-high density enhancement filter, and a combined filter representing regular MD), were utilized to assess 4 observers' monitor preferences in detecting radiographically subtle dental abnormalities. The data were analyzed by using binomial distribution. A P value ≤.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Although observers expressed preference for MD for visualizing some abnormalities when examining intraoral and panoramic radiographs, MD was not preferred for detection of any abnormalities with cone beam computed tomography. There were no significant differences in preference for SS or MD overall (P ≥ .2024). Observers expressed significant preference for the filters in visualizing all but 2 abnormalities (P ≤ .0252). CONCLUSIONS: The use of MD monitors enabled with dental filter tools may be preferred for visualizing certain subtle abnormalities. ispartof: ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY vol:132 issue:4 pages:475-482 ispartof: location:United States status: published

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess observers' preference for a dentomaxillofacial dedicated medical display (MD) vs a general-purpose standard screen (SS) for in vitro and in vivo observation of normal radioanatomic features. STUDY DESIGN: The in vitro sample consisted of 2-dimensional (2-D) intraoral (n = 15), panoramic (n = 2), cephalometric (n = 2), and 3-dimensional (3-D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (n = 9) data sets, acquired by utilizing commercially available skull and head-and-neck phantoms. The in vivo sample consisted of 80 radiographs (intraoral = 20; panoramic = 20; cephalometric = 20; and CBCT = 20). In vitro and in vivo data sets were both acquired by using Minray, Promax2-D, and Vistapano Ceph for 2-D images and Accuitomo, NewTom VGi evo, and Promax3-D for CBCT images. Five observers entered screen preferences when evaluating the appearance of radioanatomic structures on MD and SS. RESULTS: Both in vitro and in vivo assessments showed good interobserver and excellent intraobserver agreement. In vitro data suggested a significant preference for MD over SS for viewing radioanatomic features on panoramic and CBCT images, whereas MD was significantly preferred for in vivo images of all imaging modalities (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, observers preferred MD over SS for both in vitro and in vivo observation of normal radioanatomic features irrespective of the imaging modality. ispartof: ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY vol:130 issue:2 pages:217-224 ispartof: location:United States status: published