Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The reliability of tablet computers in depicting maxillofacial radiographic landmarks

  • Tadinada, Aditya (Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Mahdian, Mina (Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Sheth, Sonam (University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Chandhoke, Taranpreet K (Department of Craniofacial Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Gopalakrishna, Aadarsh (Section of Operative Dentistry, Department of Reconstructive Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Potluri, Anitha (Department of Diagnostic Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Dentistry) ;
  • Yadav, Sumit (Section of Orthodontics, Department of Craniofacial Sciences, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine)
  • Received : 2015.04.23
  • Accepted : 2015.06.21
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to evaluate the reliability of the identification of anatomical landmarks in panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs on a standard medical grade picture archiving communication system (PACS) monitor and a tablet computer (iPad 5). Materials and Methods: A total of 1000 radiographs, including 500 panoramic and 500 lateral cephalometric radiographs, were retrieved from the de-identified dataset of the archive of the Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology of the University Of Connecticut School Of Dental Medicine. Major radiographic anatomical landmarks were independently reviewed by two examiners on both displays. The examiners initially reviewed ten panoramic and ten lateral cephalometric radiographs using each imaging system, in order to verify interoperator agreement in landmark identification. The images were scored on a four-point scale reflecting the diagnostic image quality and exposure level of the images. Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two displays regarding the visibility and clarity of the landmarks in either the panoramic or cephalometric radiographs. Conclusion: Tablet computers can reliably show anatomical landmarks in panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs.

Keywords

References

  1. Boonn WW, Flanders AE. Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): survey of personal digital assistant use in radiology. Radiographics 2005; 25: 537-41. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.252045173
  2. Abboud S, Weiss F, Siegel E, Jeudy J. TB or Not TB: interreader and intrareader variability in screening diagnosis on an iPad versus a traditional display. J Am Coll Radiol 2013; 10: 42-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.07.019
  3. St Noble V, Thomas R, Gill S, Fascia D. The iPad in portable imaging: radiology on the move. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2012; 73: 426-7. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2012.73.8.426
  4. Tahir HJ, Murray IJ, Parry NR, Aslam TM. Optimisation and assessment of three modern touch screen tablet computers for clinical vision testing. PLoS One 2014; 9: e95074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095074
  5. John S, Poh AC, Lim TC, Chan EH, Chong le R. The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. J Digit Imaging 2012; 25: 628-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9485-3
  6. Johnson PT, Zimmerman SL, Heath D, Eng J, Horton KM, Scott WW, et al. The iPad as a mobile device for CT display and interpretation: diagnostic accuracy for identification of pulmonary embolism. Emerg Radiol 2012; 19: 323-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-012-1037-0
  7. Shintaku WH, Scarbecz M, Venturin JS. Evaluation of interproximal caries using the iPad 2 and a liquid crystal display monitor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: e40-4.
  8. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2009. p. 200-9.
  9. Cha JH, Moon WK, Cho N, Lee EH, Park JS, Jang MJ. LCD versus CRT monitors for digital mammography: a comparison of observer performance for the detection of clustered microcalcifications and masses. Acta Radiol 2009; 50: 1104-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841850903246608
  10. Ikeda R, Katsuragawa S, Shimonobou T, Hiai Y, Hashida M, Awai K, et al. Comparison of LCD and CRT monitors for detection of pulmonary nodules and interstitial lung diseases on digital chest radiographs by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 2006; 62: 734-41. https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.62.734
  11. Kallio-Pulkkinen S, Haapea M, Liukkonen E, Huumonen S, Tervonen O, Nieminen MT. Comparison of consumer grade, tablet and 6MP-displays: observer performance in detection of anatomical and pathological structures in panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118: 135-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.04.005
  12. Hellén-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Effect of monitors on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs - standard versus precalibrated DICOM part 14 displays: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 716-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.011
  13. Hellen-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. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/26038913
  14. Hellén-Halme K, Lith A. Carious lesions: diagnostic accuracy using pre-calibrated monitor in various ambient light levels: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130071. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130071
  15. Yoshimura K, Shimamoto K, Ikeda M, Ichikawa K, Naganawa S. A comparative contrast perception phantom image of brain CT study between high-grade and low-grade liquid crystal displays (LCDs) in electronic medical charts. Phys Med 2011; 27: 109-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2010.06.001
  16. Baheti MJ, Toshniwal N. Orthodontic apps at fingertips. Prog Orthod 2014; 15: 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0036-y

Cited by

  1. Digital dental radiology in Belgium: a nationwide survey vol.47, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180045