Image quality evaluation of eight complementary metal-oxide semiconductor intraoral digital X-ray sensors

• Published in: International dental journal Vol. 66; no. 5; pp. 264 - 271
• Main Authors: Teich, Sorin, Al-Rawi, Wisam, Heima, Masahiro, Faddoul, Fady F., Goldzweig, Gil, Gutmacher, Zvi, Aizenbud, Dror
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2016; Elsevier Limited; Elsevier
• Subjects: complementary metal-oxide semiconductor; Dentistry; Digital cameras; digital sensors; Equipment Design; Humans; Imaging; Metals; oral diagnosis; Oxides; Quality; Radiography, Dental, Digital - instrumentation; Scientific Research Report; Semiconductors; Sensors; Visual Grading Characteristics; X-Rays; complementary metal-oxide semiconductor; oral diagnosis; digital sensors; Imaging; Visual Grading Characteristics
• ISSN: 0020-6539; 1875-595X
• DOI: 10.1111/idj.12241

Purpose To evaluate the image quality generated by eight commercially available intraoral sensors. Methods Eighteen clinicians ranked the quality of a bitewing acquired from one subject using eight different intraoral sensors. Analytical methods used to evaluate clinical image quality included the Visual Grading Characteristics method, which helps to quantify subjective opinions to make them suitable for analysis. Results The Dexis sensor was ranked significantly better than Sirona and Carestream‐Kodak sensors; and the image captured using the Carestream‐Kodak sensor was ranked significantly worse than those captured using Dexis, Schick and Cyber Medical Imaging sensors. The Image Works sensor image was rated the lowest by all clinicians. Other comparisons resulted in non‐significant results. Conclusions None of the sensors was considered to generate images of significantly better quality than the other sensors tested. Further research should be directed towards determining the clinical significance of the differences in image quality reported in this study.