Comparative analysis of clinical image evaluation charts for panoramic radiography

Objective To compare and analyze professional (P chart) and simple (S chart) clinical image evaluation charts for evaluating panoramic radiograph image quality. Methods Ten evaluators assessed 285 clinical panoramic radiograph images. The evaluators were divided into oral and maxillofacial radiologi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Oral radiology 2024-10, Vol.40 (4), p.520-529
Main Authors: Kim, Yeonhee, Lee, Samsun, Jo, Gyudong, Kwon, Ahyoung, Kang, Juhee, Kim, Joeun, Huh, Kyunghoe, Yi, Wonjin, Heo, Minsuk, Choi, Soonchul
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Comparative analysis
Dentistry
Image processing
Imaging
Maxillofacial
Medicine
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Original
Original Article
Radiography
Radiology
Statistical analysis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To compare and analyze professional (P chart) and simple (S chart) clinical image evaluation charts for evaluating panoramic radiograph image quality. Methods Ten evaluators assessed 285 clinical panoramic radiograph images. The evaluators were divided into oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFR, n = 5) and general dentist (dentists not specializing in oral and maxillofacial radiology, G, n = 5) groups. For image evaluation, P and S charts provided by the Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology were used. Scores of items for each evaluation chart were used to compare the reliability, correlation, evaluation scores, evaluation time, and preference, and statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics. Results The S chart showed similar levels of evaluation scores at shorter evaluation time, as compared to the P chart. In the results for each evaluation chart, all analyzed correlations were statistically significant. Total score, image density/contrast/sharpness, and overall image quality items showed a very high positive correlation in the P chart. While the overall range of correlation coefficients was relatively lower in the S chart than the P chart, the same items showed high correlation coefficients. In the preference evaluation, both the professional and generalist groups preferred the S chart. Conclusions A comparative analysis with the P chart, revisions, and upgrades are needed for the S chart items that showed low correlations in this study, such as artifacts, coverage area, and patient movement.
ISSN:0911-6028
1613-9674
1613-9674
DOI:10.1007/s11282-024-00765-3