Clinical image quality assessment in panoramic radiography

Year 2014, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 126 - 132, 15.12.2014

Meltem Mayil Gaye Keser Filiz Namdar Pekiner

Abstract

Aim: This study was performed to assess the quality of panoramic radiographs obtained and to identify those errors directly responsible for diagnostically inadequate images. 

Materials and Methods: This study consisted of 150 panoramic radiographs obtained from the Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology. All projections were made with the same radiographic equipment (Morita Veraviewwopcs model 550 (Kyoto-Japan) with the maximum KVP of 80, mA=12, monitor 17 inch TFT LCD, 100-240 VAC 60/50 Hz, Global Opportunities). The images were exported and saved in Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) file and no adjustment of contrast, brightness and magnification was performed. Two oral and maxillofacial radiology specialist evaluated the images using the Clinical Image Quality Evaluation Chart and classified the overall image quality of the panoramic radiographs and evaluated the causes of imaging errors.

Results: The mean (SD)score was 79.69±14.87. In the classification of the overall image quality, 28 images were deemed ‘optimal for obtaining diagnostic information’, 80 were ‘adequate for diagnosis’, 37 were ‘poor but diagnosable’, and 5 were ‘unrecognizable and too poor for diagnosis’. The results of the analysis of the causes of the errors in all the images were as follows: 103 errors in positioning, 15 in processing, 4 due to radiographic unit, and none of them was due to anatomic abnormality.

Conclusion: The positioning errors found on panoramic radiographs were relatively common in our study. The quality of panoramic radiographs could be improved by careful attention to patient positioning.

Keywords

Oral radiology, assesment, image quality, panoramic radiography, digital imaging

Panoramik radyografide kalite değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada elde edilen panoramik radyografilerin kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi ve tanı için yetersiz görüntülere neden olan hataların tespiti amaçlanmıştır. 

Yöntem: Çalışmada Oral Diagnoz ve Radyoloji AD arşivlerinde yer alan 150 adet panoramik radyografi incelenmiştir (Morita Veraviewwopcs model 550 ,Kyoto-Japan, en yüksek KVP of 80, mA=12, monitör 17 inç TFT LCD, 100-240 VAC 60/50 Hz, Global Opportunities). Bütün grafiler aynı radyografik ekipman ile yapılmıştır. Görüntüler JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group ) dosyası olarak kaydedilmiş ve kontrast, parlaklık ve büyütme ve data kompresyonu açısından herhangi bir düzeltme yapılmamıştır. Elde edilen görüntüler iki maksillofasiyal radyoloji uzmanı tarafından Klinik Görüntü Kalitesi Değerlendirme Çizelgesi kullanarak değerlendirilmiş, panoramik radyografide genel görüntü kalitesi sınıflandırılmış ve görüntüleme hatalarının nedenleri incelenmiştir. Veri tablolama ve tanımlayıcı istatistik SPSS 15.0 yazılımı (SPSS Inc., Chicago. IL., USA) kullanılarak yapılmıştır. 

Bulgular: Klinik Görüntü Kalitesi Değerlendirme Çizelgesi ortalama değeri 79.69±14.87 olarak ölçülmüştür. Görüntü kalitesinin skorlamasında 28 görüntünün tanısal bilgide en iyi görüntü kalitesine sahip olduğu, 80 görüntünün tanı için yeterli olduğu, 37 görüntünün tanı koyma açısından zayıf ama teşhis edilebilir olduğu ve 5 görüntünün tanı için yetersiz olduğu belirlenmiştir. Tüm görüntülerde izlenen hataların nedenlerinin analiz sonuçları şu şekildedir: 103 görüntüde konumlandırma hatası, 15 görüntüde işlem sırasında oluşan hata, 4 görüntüde ünite kaynaklı hata görülmüş ancak hiçbir radyografide anatomik abnormaliteye bağlı hata izlenmemiştir. 

Sonuç: Panoramik radyografinin görüntüleme işlemi sırasında hasta konumlandırma tarafından kaynaklanan hatalar çalışmamızda en yaygın izlenen hata tipi olarak bulunmuştur. Ancak daha fazla hasta grubu ile farklı radyografik yöntemler kullanılarak görüntü kalitesinin değerlendirildiği çalışmalara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

Keywords

Oral radyoloji, değerlendirme, görüntü kalitesi, panoramik radyografi, dijital görüntüleme

References

• Park TW, Lee SR, Kim JD, Park CS, Choi SC, Koh KJ, et al. Oral and maxillofacial radiology. 3rd ed. Seoul: Narae Publishing Inc; 2001. p.138-145.
• White SC, Weissman DD. Relative discernment of lesions by intraoral and panoramic radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;95:1117-1121.
• Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV. Aspects of panoramic radiography in general dental practice. Br Dent J. 1999; 186:342-344.
• Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV. Routine panoramic radiography of new adult patients in general dental practice: relevance of diagnostic yield to treatment and identification of radiographic selection criteria. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93:488-495.
• Rushton VE. Horner K. The use of panoramic radiology in dental practice. J Dent. 1996;24:185-201.
• Horner K. Review article: radiation protection in dental radiology. Br J Radiol. 1994;67:1041-1049.
• Pitts NB, Kidd EA. Some of the factors to be considered in the prescription and timing of bitewing radiography in the diagnosis and management of dental caries. J Dent. 1992;20:74-84.
• Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV. The quality of panoramic radiographs in a sample of general dental practices. Br Dent J. 1999;86:630-633.
• Langland OE, Sippy FH, Morris CR, Langlais RP. Principles and practice of panoramic radiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia(PA): WB Saunders; 1992.
• Nixon PP, Thorogood J, Holloway J, Smith NJ. An audit of film reject and repeat rates in a department of dental radiology. Br J Radiol. 1995;68:1304-1307.
• Choi BR, Choi DH, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Heo MS, Choi SC, Bae KH, Lee SS. Clinical image quality evaluation for panoramic radiography in Korean dental clinics. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42:183-190.
• Lee SH, Choe YH, Chung SY, Kim MH, Kim EK, Oh KK, et al. Establishment of quality assessment standard for mammographic equipments: evaluation of phantom and clinical images. J Korean Radiol Soc. 2005;53:117-127.
• White SC, Pharaoh MJ. Oral Radiology: principles and interpretation.5th ed. Philadelphia(PA): CV Mosby;2004. p.200-217.
• Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:1237-1243.
• Helminen SE, Vehkalahti M, Wolf J, Murtomaa H. Quality evaluation of young adults’ radiographs in Finnish public oral health service. J Dent. 2000;28:549-555.
• Royal College of Radiologists, National Radiological ProtectionBoard. Guidelines on radiology standards for primary dental care. London: NRPB; 1994:30.
• Akesson L, Hakansson J, Rohlin M and Zoger B. An evaluation of image quality for the assessment of the marginal bone level in panoramic radiography. Swed Dent J. 1991;78:101-129.
• Razmus TF, Glass BJ, McDavid WD. Comparison of image layer location among panoramic machines of the same manufacturer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989;67:102-108.
• Dhillon M, Raju SM, Verma S, Tomar D, Mohan RS, Lakhanpal M, Krishnamootr B. Positioning errors and quality assessment in panoramic radiography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2012;42:207-212.
• Brezden NA, Brooks SL. Evaluation of panoramic dental radiographs taken in private practice. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987;63:617- 621.
• Schiff T, D’Ambrosio J, Glass BJ, Langlais RP and McDavid WD. Common positioning and technical errors in panoramic radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986;113:422-426.
• Akarslan ZZ, Erten H, Güngör K, Celik I. Common errors on panoramic radiographs taken in a dental school. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2003;4:24-34.
• Murray D, Whyte A. Dental panoramic tomography: what the general radiologist needs to know. Clinical Radiology. 2002;57(1):1-7.