Layrlla Kateriny Moura Oliveira Lopes, Rodolfo Ramos Castelo Branco, Rafaela Pequeno Reis Sousa, Elisa Diniz de Lima, Diego Filipe Bezerra Silva, Daniela Pita de Melo
{"title":"The influence of different cheek and lip retractors and emissivity on intraoral infrared thermography.","authors":"Layrlla Kateriny Moura Oliveira Lopes, Rodolfo Ramos Castelo Branco, Rafaela Pequeno Reis Sousa, Elisa Diniz de Lima, Diego Filipe Bezerra Silva, Daniela Pita de Melo","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twae025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the influence of two conventional and one adapted cheek and lip retractors and three emissivity setting values on intraoral infrared thermography (IT) temperature values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The sample was composed by 50 volunteers. Three cheek and lip retractors were tested: Group 1-flex retractor (FR); Group 2-FR adapted with Styrofoam; Group 3-U-type retractor (UR) for cheek and lip. All thermograms were acquired using FLIR T650 infrared camera. A set of three thermograms in frontal norm were acquired for each lip and cheek retractor at 0.91, 0.96, and 0.98ε, with an interval of 15 min between each set of images to avoid thermal interference. All images were assessed by two observers. The ROIs' mean temperature of the four upper incisors was recorded. Two-way ANOVA and Sidak post-test were used for data assessment with a significance level of 5%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 3 showed higher mean temperature than Groups 1 and 2 at all emissivity settings for all assessed teeth (P < .05). 0.91ε showed higher temperature than 0.96ε and 0.98ε for all assessed variables (P < .01). Contralateral teeth assessed using Group 3 at 0.91ε showed statistical differences between each other (P < .05). No statistical difference was observed between contralateral teeth assessed using Groups 1 and 2 at 0.96ε and 0.98ε (P > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The choice of cheek and lip retractor and emissivity setting can interfere on intraoral IT temperature values. U-type cheek and lip retractor and 0.91ε setting should not be used for IT image acquisition when assessing dental tissues.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":"417-422"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358626/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twae025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the influence of two conventional and one adapted cheek and lip retractors and three emissivity setting values on intraoral infrared thermography (IT) temperature values.
Methods: The sample was composed by 50 volunteers. Three cheek and lip retractors were tested: Group 1-flex retractor (FR); Group 2-FR adapted with Styrofoam; Group 3-U-type retractor (UR) for cheek and lip. All thermograms were acquired using FLIR T650 infrared camera. A set of three thermograms in frontal norm were acquired for each lip and cheek retractor at 0.91, 0.96, and 0.98ε, with an interval of 15 min between each set of images to avoid thermal interference. All images were assessed by two observers. The ROIs' mean temperature of the four upper incisors was recorded. Two-way ANOVA and Sidak post-test were used for data assessment with a significance level of 5%.
Results: Group 3 showed higher mean temperature than Groups 1 and 2 at all emissivity settings for all assessed teeth (P < .05). 0.91ε showed higher temperature than 0.96ε and 0.98ε for all assessed variables (P < .01). Contralateral teeth assessed using Group 3 at 0.91ε showed statistical differences between each other (P < .05). No statistical difference was observed between contralateral teeth assessed using Groups 1 and 2 at 0.96ε and 0.98ε (P > .05).
Conclusions: The choice of cheek and lip retractor and emissivity setting can interfere on intraoral IT temperature values. U-type cheek and lip retractor and 0.91ε setting should not be used for IT image acquisition when assessing dental tissues.
期刊介绍：
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging.
Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology.
The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal.
Quick Facts:
- 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919
- Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks
- Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks
- Open access option
- ISSN: 0250-832X
- eISSN: 1476-542X
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
