Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions

Influence of different viewing conditions on the detection of fractured endodontic instruments using periapical radiographs at 3 projection angles

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the influence of ambient lighting levels and horizontal viewing angle (HVA) on the radiographic detection of fractured endodontic instruments in root canals in extracted human mandibular molars.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirty-two root canals were selected. Endodontic instrument fracture was induced in 24 canals, and all canals were endodontially treated. Periapical radiographs were obtained at orthoradial, mesioradial, and distoradial projection angles. Five oral radiologists examined the radiographs for detection of fractured endodontic instruments under 3 ambient lighting levels (high, 450 lux; medium, 28 lux; and low, 2.5 lux) and 3 HVAs (90°, 67.5°, and 45°). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared by 2-way analysis of variance using Tukey post hoc tests (α = .05).

RESULTS

AUROC data indicated that ambient lighting (P = .739) and HVA (P = .238) did not significantly influence the detection of fractured endodontic instruments. Overall mean diagnostic values were 0.745, 0.57, 0.46, and 0.90 for AUROC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The viewing conditions assessed in this study did not influence the radiographic detection of fractured endodontic instruments in root canals.

Impact of viewing conditions on the performance assessment of different computer monitors used for dental diagnostics

Purpose

This study aimed to assess the computer monitors used for analysis and interpretation of digital radiographs within the clinics of the Oral Health Centre of Western Australia.

Materials and Methods

In total, 135 computer monitors (3 brands, 6 models) were assessed by analysing the same radiographic image of a combined 13-step aluminium step wedge and the Artinis CDDent 1.0® (Artinis Medical Systems B.V.®, Elst, the Netherlands) test object. The number of steps and cylindrical objects observed on each monitor was recorded along with the monitor's make, model, position relative to the researcher's eye level, and proximity to the nearest window. The number of window panels blocked by blinds, the outside weather conditions, and the number of ceiling lights over the surgical suite/cubicle were also recorded. MedCalc® version 19.2.1 (MedCalc Software Ltd®, Ostend, Belgium, https://www.medcalc.org; 2020) was used for statistical analyses (Kruskal-Wallis test and stepwise regression analysis). The level of significance was set at P<0.05.

Results

Stepwise regression analysis showed that only the monitor brand and proximity of the monitor to a window had a significant impact on the monitor's performance (P<0.05). The Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences (P<0.05) in monitor performance for all variables investigated, except for the weather and the clinic in which the monitors were placed.

Conclusion

The vast performance variation present between computer monitors implies the need for a review of monitor selection, calibration, and viewing conditions.

Is the digital radiographic detection of approximal caries lesions influenced by viewing conditions?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different viewing conditions (combinations of computer display, horizontal viewing angle, and ambient lighting) on the detection of approximal caries lesions on digital radiographic images.

STUDY DESIGN

Forty posterior teeth were mounted in a plaster block and radiographed by using a CMOS sensor-based system. Three oral radiologists assessed the radiographic images under different conditions of computer display (iMac 5K 27", Barco MDRC-2124, and Dell P2314H), horizontal viewing angles (90 degrees, 67.5 degrees, and 45 degrees), and ambient lighting (low, medium, and high) and were asked to detect the presence of approximal caries lesions, which were confirmed by means of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), using a 5-point scale. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared by analysis of variance testing (α = 0.05). Intra- and interobserver agreements were assessed with the Kappa test.

RESULTS

Computer display, horizontal viewing angle, and ambient lighting did not significantly influence the diagnosis of approximal caries lesions. In general, moderate values of accuracy, low sensitivity, and high specificity were found for all viewing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The viewing conditions assessed in this study did not influence the detection of approximal caries lesions on digital radiographic images. Dental practitioners are encouraged to find their most comfortable viewing condition for this diagnostic task.

Influence of interpretation conditions on the subjective differentiation of radiographic contrast of images obtained with a digital intraoral system

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate interpretation conditions in the subjective in vitro assessment of dental tissue-equivalent radiographic contrast.

STUDY DESIGN

Radiographic images with the density of dental structures were randomized and arranged in 20 sequences with images juxtaposed and separated. Twelve observers interpreted the sequence among the most radiolucent and radiopaque images with 3 displays, 3 horizontal viewing angles, and 3 ambient light conditions. The evaluation time was recorded. The hit percentage was calculated for each evaluation. Three-way analysis of variance with Tukey's test was used to compare the conditions of interpretation. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

No differences in hit percentages were found among the 3 displays or among the juxtaposed and separated images. Increased hit percentages were recorded for images assessed at 90° compared with 45° for all displays and in high ambient light vs intermediate and low light at 90°. Increased evaluation time was recorded for the consumer-grade display under high ambient light and for the separated images.

CONCLUSIONS

The subjective in vitro assessment of dental tissue-equivalent radiographic contrast is not influenced by computer display, which should be viewed at a horizontal viewing angle of 90° and under high ambient light. Longer evaluation times may be expected with consumer-grade displays.

Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments

OBJECTIVES

To assess the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment in different room lighting conditions and image display devices.

METHODS

After approval by Research Ethical Board, 20 images were obtained from blocks with one endodontically treated tooth. Of the 20 endodontic treatments conducted in the laboratory, of those the randomly selected 10 teeth (50% of sample) received some quality defect in three parameters-apical limit, adaptation to root canal and homogeneity of the root canal filling material. Digital radiographs (DIGORA® Optime, Soredex, Milwaukee, WI) were obtained, which were evaluated (8 times) by 10 observers in two different conditions of room lighting, with bright (1000 to 1200 lux) and dim light (25 to 50 lux), using two different image display devices, smartphones and laptop computers. The observers assessed the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment with respect to quality of each one of three parameters individually. The data of observers' responses in terms of the quality of each parameter were statistically compared using Cronbach's α coefficient, diagnostic tests, π coefficient and ANOVA with Tukey tests, at a significant level setting of 5% (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The mean of reliability of observer responses ranged from 0.89 (intra-evaluator) to 0.66 (inter-evaluator). The mean values of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area were 0.661 (PD = 0.098), with laptop in bright lighting appraising homogeneity of the root canal filling material on the worst performance (ROC area = 0.57), which was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and 0.81 with laptop in dim lighting appraising apical limit on the best performance. Differences (p < 0.05) occurred mainly among parameters used for assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Room lighting and image display devices have very little influence in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatment. Thus, we suggest the use of smartphones as an acceptable image display device in daily clinical practice in routine bright lighting conditions.

Longitudinal Evaluation of Radiopacity of Resin Composites: Influence of Photoactivation and Accelerated Photoaging

This study aimed to assess longitudinally the radiopacity of resin composites under the influence of photoactivation and photoaging processes. Ten specimens (1 mm thick and 4 mm in diameter) of three different microhybrid resin composites, Filtek Z250 XT (R1), TPH 3 Spectrum (R2), and Opallis (R3), were prepared for this study. For longitudinal assessment of radiopacity, radiographic images were obtained five times. The first time (T1), the specimens were not photoactivated; the second time (T2), the specimens were photoactivated; and the next three times, photoaging was carried out, with images obtained at 24 hours (T3), 48 hours (T4), and 72 hours (T5) after this process. The photoaging was conducted using LED light (700 lumens, 9 W, 6400 k) under controlled environmental conditions at 37°C (±1°C) and 65% (±5%) relative humidity. The digital system DIGORA Optime was used. The digital images were measured using the histogram function, and then the pixel intensity values were converted into mmAl (the standard unit of radiopacity) using a linear regression function, with minimal adjustment of R² ≥ 0.9. Data in mmAl were statistically analyzed using an analysis of variance (α=0.05). R2 resin composite showed higher values of radiopacity, R1 resin composite showed intermediate values, and R3 resin composite showed lower values. Only at T1 did the higher radiopacity of R2 composite differ significantly from other groups ( p = 0.0000). After application of treatments (photoactivation and photoaging), all radiopacity values were similar ( p-values to T2=0.0507, T3=0.0536, T4=0.0502, T5=0.0501) due to consecutive increase of radiopacity of R1 and R3 composites from T2. Photoactivation and photoaging processes influenced the radiopacity, but changes occurring in the degree of radiopacity were dependent on the composition and chemical characteristics of each composite used.