UiTM牙科学生咬翼x线片图像质量评价

Lha Rasid, S. Razak, Aaeid Ayoub, M. Kamaruzaman, NW Azmi
{"title":"UiTM牙科学生咬翼x线片图像质量评价","authors":"Lha Rasid, S. Razak, Aaeid Ayoub, M. Kamaruzaman, NW Azmi","doi":"10.24191/cos.v7i0.17492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To evaluate the quality of bitewing radiograph taken by Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) dental students during daily clinical practices and to evaluate the difference in caries lesions found on bitewing radiographs and clinical examination. Materials and method: 120 patients who attended the undergraduate dental clinic for dental examination were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were patients within the age range of 17-45 years old, possessing at least three sets of posterior teeth, with bitewing radiographs taken by undergraduate dental students. The number of caries lesions detected by clinical examination, bitewing radiographs, and a combination of both methods were recorded. The quality of 240 bitewing radiographs was classified into three categories; excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable. The frequency of radiographic errors; foreshortening/elongation, horizontal overlapping, inadequate film coverage, non-ideal centering and inadequate contrast and density were also evaluated. Results: The quality of bitewing radiographs are mostly accepted to be used as a diagnostic tool and one of the factors which commonly affected the quality of the bitewing is the overlapping of adjacent teeth. The highest number of caries lesions were detected radiographically (74%) compared with 25% caries by clinical examination. The majority of radiographs (71%, n=171) were deemed to be of acceptable quality, 39(16%) were excellent, and 30(13%) were diagnostically unacceptable. “Horizontal overlap” was the most common error detected on the radiographs (n=139, 57.9%), followed by “non-ideal centering” (n=93, 38.8%), “inadequate contrast” (n=46, 19.2%) and “inadequate film coverage” (n=24,10%). The highest number of caries lesions were detected radiographically (74%) compared with 25% caries by clinical examination. Conclusion: The quality of the majority of bitewing radiographs taken by undergraduate dental students in this institution is acceptable. However, given that more than half of the radiographs possessed horizontal overlapping error, caries diagnosis may have been underestimated. Further training and periodic audits are required to reduce the percentage of errors in bitewing radiographs amongst undergraduate dental students.","PeriodicalId":10525,"journal":{"name":"Compendium of Oral Science","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Image Quality of Bitewing Radiographs taken by UiTM Dental Students\",\"authors\":\"Lha Rasid, S. Razak, Aaeid Ayoub, M. Kamaruzaman, NW Azmi\",\"doi\":\"10.24191/cos.v7i0.17492\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: To evaluate the quality of bitewing radiograph taken by Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) dental students during daily clinical practices and to evaluate the difference in caries lesions found on bitewing radiographs and clinical examination. Materials and method: 120 patients who attended the undergraduate dental clinic for dental examination were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were patients within the age range of 17-45 years old, possessing at least three sets of posterior teeth, with bitewing radiographs taken by undergraduate dental students. The number of caries lesions detected by clinical examination, bitewing radiographs, and a combination of both methods were recorded. The quality of 240 bitewing radiographs was classified into three categories; excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable. The frequency of radiographic errors; foreshortening/elongation, horizontal overlapping, inadequate film coverage, non-ideal centering and inadequate contrast and density were also evaluated. Results: The quality of bitewing radiographs are mostly accepted to be used as a diagnostic tool and one of the factors which commonly affected the quality of the bitewing is the overlapping of adjacent teeth. The highest number of caries lesions were detected radiographically (74%) compared with 25% caries by clinical examination. The majority of radiographs (71%, n=171) were deemed to be of acceptable quality, 39(16%) were excellent, and 30(13%) were diagnostically unacceptable. “Horizontal overlap” was the most common error detected on the radiographs (n=139, 57.9%), followed by “non-ideal centering” (n=93, 38.8%), “inadequate contrast” (n=46, 19.2%) and “inadequate film coverage” (n=24,10%). The highest number of caries lesions were detected radiographically (74%) compared with 25% caries by clinical examination. Conclusion: The quality of the majority of bitewing radiographs taken by undergraduate dental students in this institution is acceptable. However, given that more than half of the radiographs possessed horizontal overlapping error, caries diagnosis may have been underestimated. Further training and periodic audits are required to reduce the percentage of errors in bitewing radiographs amongst undergraduate dental students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Compendium of Oral Science\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Compendium of Oral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v7i0.17492\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Compendium of Oral Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v7i0.17492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价理工大学(Universiti technologi MARA, UiTM)牙科学生在日常临床实践中所拍摄的咬翼x线片的质量,并评价咬翼x线片与临床检查所发现的龋齿病变的差异。材料与方法:选取120例在本科牙科门诊接受口腔检查的患者作为研究对象。纳入标准为年龄在17-45岁之间,至少有三套后牙,并有牙科本科学生拍摄的咬翼x线片。记录临床检查、咬牙x线片及两种方法联合检测到的龋齿病变数量。240张咬痕x线片质量分为三类;优秀,可接受和不可接受。射线照相误差的频率;预缩/伸长,水平重叠,膜覆盖不足,定心不理想,对比度和密度不足也进行了评价。结果:咬翼x线片质量被广泛接受作为诊断工具,邻牙重叠是影响咬翼质量的常见因素之一。x线检查发现的龋齿病变最多(74%),而临床检查发现的龋齿病变最多(25%)。大多数x线片(71%,n=171)被认为质量可接受,39张(16%)为优秀,30张(13%)诊断为不可接受。“水平重叠”是x线片上最常见的错误(n=139, 57.9%),其次是“不理想定心”(n=93, 38.8%)、“对比度不足”(n=46, 19.2%)和“胶片覆盖不足”(n=24,10%)。x线检查发现的龋齿病变最多(74%),而临床检查发现的龋齿病变最多(25%)。结论:我院本科牙科学生所拍摄的咬牙x线片多数质量尚可。然而,考虑到超过一半的x线片存在水平重叠错误,龋齿诊断可能被低估了。需要进一步的培训和定期审计,以减少本科牙科学生咬牙x线片的错误率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of Image Quality of Bitewing Radiographs taken by UiTM Dental Students
Objectives: To evaluate the quality of bitewing radiograph taken by Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) dental students during daily clinical practices and to evaluate the difference in caries lesions found on bitewing radiographs and clinical examination. Materials and method: 120 patients who attended the undergraduate dental clinic for dental examination were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were patients within the age range of 17-45 years old, possessing at least three sets of posterior teeth, with bitewing radiographs taken by undergraduate dental students. The number of caries lesions detected by clinical examination, bitewing radiographs, and a combination of both methods were recorded. The quality of 240 bitewing radiographs was classified into three categories; excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable. The frequency of radiographic errors; foreshortening/elongation, horizontal overlapping, inadequate film coverage, non-ideal centering and inadequate contrast and density were also evaluated. Results: The quality of bitewing radiographs are mostly accepted to be used as a diagnostic tool and one of the factors which commonly affected the quality of the bitewing is the overlapping of adjacent teeth. The highest number of caries lesions were detected radiographically (74%) compared with 25% caries by clinical examination. The majority of radiographs (71%, n=171) were deemed to be of acceptable quality, 39(16%) were excellent, and 30(13%) were diagnostically unacceptable. “Horizontal overlap” was the most common error detected on the radiographs (n=139, 57.9%), followed by “non-ideal centering” (n=93, 38.8%), “inadequate contrast” (n=46, 19.2%) and “inadequate film coverage” (n=24,10%). The highest number of caries lesions were detected radiographically (74%) compared with 25% caries by clinical examination. Conclusion: The quality of the majority of bitewing radiographs taken by undergraduate dental students in this institution is acceptable. However, given that more than half of the radiographs possessed horizontal overlapping error, caries diagnosis may have been underestimated. Further training and periodic audits are required to reduce the percentage of errors in bitewing radiographs amongst undergraduate dental students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lost in Space - Caldwell Luc Antrostomy for Retrieving Displaced Root into Maxillary Sinus: A Case Report Knowledge and Perception on Oral Hygiene Instructions and Periodontal Health Education (OHIPE) among UiTM Dental Undergraduates Management of Silver Point Retrieval for Root canal Retreatment: A Case Report Twitchy Pain of Left Face: A Rare Case of Idiopathic Trigeminal Neuralgia after Tooth Extraction in a Young Child Ligature-induced Periodontitis in Rats and Mice: A Systematic Review on Therapeutic Targets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1