In vitro comparison of digital and conventional bitewing radiographs for the detection of approximal caries in primary teeth exposed and viewed by a new wireless handheld unit

Creative Commons License

Ulusu T., Bodur H., Odabas M. E.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol.39, no.2, pp.91-94, 2010 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 39 Issue: 2
  • Publication Date: 2010
  • Doi Number: 10.1259/dmfr/15182314
  • Journal Name: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.91-94
  • Keywords: approximal caries, bitewing radiographs, handheld unit, receiver operating characteristic curve, primary teeth, PROXIMAL CARIES, DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY, FILM, PERFORMANCE, SYSTEMS, SENSOR
  • Gazi University Affiliated: Yes


Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic quality of a new wireless handheld unit (ADX4000; Dexcowin Co. Ltd, Korea) on conventional bitewings and its LCD screen for the detection of approximal caries in primary teeth. Methods: In total, 108 approximal surfaces of primary teeth were examined in vitro by 3 observers. Conventional films were viewed under subdued lighting conditions on a conventional view box. Digital 3.5 inch images were displayed on the built-in monitor of the ADX4000 and digital 17 inch images were viewed on a 17 inch monitor. The true caries diagnosis was based on histological assessment of the approximal surfaces after sectioning the primary teeth. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) analysis was used to assess the diagnostic quality of imaging modalities. Results: The areas under the ROC curves ranged from 0.786 (digital 17 inch) to 0.813 (digital 3.5 inch). No statistically significant differences were found between the three modalities for detecting approximal caries. Conclusions: It was concluded that the diagnostic quality of conventional film and digital images, which were exposed and viewed by a new wireless handheld unit, was comparable. © 2010 The British Institute of Radiology.