English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Today film-based technologies are largely abandoned in dental radiology. New technologies based on digital detectors are being adopted. This change is part of the global digitalization of radiological procedures. A person operating the radiological device needs to be educated and well informed about radiological procedures and technologies, as well as to know how the system operates and to be sure about the dose required for the adequate image quality. The awareness of radiation doses received by patients is necessary for the estimation of risk from ionizing radiation. Material and methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patient doses in intraoral dental radiology affect image quality. The study included subjective analysis of radiological image quality for an intraoral x-ray device with possibility to use both digital and film detector. Subjective assessment of image quality is performed according to criteria taken from the literature and is expressed using the Likert scale, grade 1–5. In order to improve the quality of inferential statistics related ratings to detector quality and image quality were collected, thus introducing two variables: the detector quality index and the technique quality index. Results: Z-test proportions column shows that the number of grades four given as a contrast score is significantly higher in the RVG detector (65%) compared to the film (40%). There is also a significant difference in the number of given grades five as a rating of the apex preview. The share of grades five in film is 19%, while in RVG it is 42%. It is similar in the evaluation of the preview of the dental canal, where there is also a significant difference in the number of given grades five, so that the share in the film is 11% and in RVG 35%. Conclusion: Analysis of the subjective quality of the radiological image in devices for intraoral radiography with the possibility of recording using digital and film detectors indicates that the digital detector is superior to film in low contrast resolution, apex and dental canal preview.

The analysis of the subjective image quality of a dental radiogram obtained with a digital and film detector