Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Patient Comfort Associated with Wireless Sensors in Digital Radiography: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Protocol and Registration
2.2. Suitability Criteria
2.3. Databases
2.4. Search Strategy
2.5. Study Selection
2.6. Data Collection
2.7. Assessing Bias Risk and Study Quality in Individual Studies
- -
- A clear research framework and objectives;
- -
- Well-defined study setting and sample;
- -
- Robust data collection and analysis methods;
- -
- Reliability and validity of measurement tools;
- -
- Alignment between research question, data collection, and analysis;
- -
- User involvement and critical discussion of strengths and limitations.
2.8. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Descriptions of the Findings
3.3. Outcomes Analysis
3.4. Evaluation of Study Bias and Research Quality
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ritter, L.; Elger, M.C.; Rothamel, D.; Fienitz, T.; Zinser, M.; Schwarz, F.; Zöller, J.E. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2014, 43, 20130088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bohner, L.O.L.; Mukai, E.; Oderich, E.; Porporatti, A.L.; Pacheco-Pereira, C.; Tortamano, P.; Canto, G.D.L. Comparative analysis of imaging techniques for diagnostic accuracy of peri-implant bone defects: A meta-analysis. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2017, 124, 432–440.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paradiso, D.; Tullio, A.; Bensi, C. Working length determination in primary teeth pulpectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust. Endod. J. 2023, 49, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yapp, K.E.; Suleiman, M.; Brennan, P.; Ekpo, E. Periapical Radiography versus Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Endodontic Disease Detection: A Free-response, Factorial Study. J. Endod. 2023, 49, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenzel, A. Radiographic modalities for diagnosis of caries in a historical perspective: From film to machine-intelligence supported systems. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2021, 50, 20210010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinho-Vieira, L.E.; Martins, L.A.C.; Freitas, D.Q.; Haiter-Neto, F.; Oliveira, M.L. Revisiting dynamic range and image enhancement ability of contemporary digital radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2022, 51, 20210404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlenz, M.A.; Schulz-Weidner, N.; Olbrich, M.; Buchmann, D.; Wöstmann, B. Insights on the digitalisation of dental practices: A cross-sectional pilot study in Hesse. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2023; online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, M.A.; Karawia, I.; Mahmoud, A.Z.; Mohamed, O.S. Knowledge, awareness, and perception of digital dentistry among Egyptian dentists: A cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Libonati, A.; Gallusi, G.; Montemurro, E.; Di Taranto, V. Reduction of radiations exposure in endodontics: Comparative analysis of direct (GX S-700, Gendex) and semidirect (VistaScan Mini View, Dürr) digital systems. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2021, 35, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, C.-W.; Joo, S.-C.; Ryu, J.-H.; Lee, J.; Kim, K.-W.; Yoon, K.-H. Development of a Mini-Mobile Digital Radiography System by Using Wireless Smart Devices. J. Digit. Imaging 2014, 27, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.J.; Lee, K.H.; Hwang, S.I.; Kim, H.-C.; Seo, E.H.; Kim, T.G.; Ha, K.-S. The Effect of Wireless LAN-Based PACS Device for Portable Imaging Modalities. J. Digit. Imaging 2010, 23, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirriyeh, R.; Lawton, R.; Gardner, P.; Armitage, G. Reviewing studies with diverse designs: The development and evaluation of a new tool. J. Eval. Clin. Pr. 2012, 18, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Melo, D.P.; Pontual, A.D.A.; Haiter-Neto, F.; Alves, M.C.; Bóscolo, F.N.; Campos, P.S.F. Effect of different exposure times on caries detection and pixel value in a wireless digital system. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2019, 30, 665–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hellén-Halme, K.; Nilsson, M. The Effects on Absorbed Dose Distribution in Intraoral X-ray Imaging When Using Tube Voltages of 60 and 70 kV for Bitewing Imaging. J. Oral Maxillofac. Res. 2013, 4, e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellén-Halme, K. Effect of two X-ray tube voltages on detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs. An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2011, 15, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matzen, L.H.; Christensen, J.; Wenzel, A. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2009, 107, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamburoğlu, K.; Tsesis, I.; Kfir, A.; Kaffe, I. Diagnosis of artificially induced external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, and PSP: An ex vivo study. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2008, 106, 885–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haiter-Neto, F.; Pontual, A.d.A.; Frydenberg, M.; Wenzel, A. A comparison of older and newer versions of intraoral digital radiography systems: Diagnosing noncavitated proximal carious lesions. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2007, 138, 1353–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athar, A.; Angelopoulos, C.; Katz, J.O.; Williams, K.B.; Spencer, P. Radiographic endodontic working length estimation: Comparison of three digital image receptors. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2008, 106, 604–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsuchida, R.; Araki, K.; Endo, A.; Funahashi, I.; Okano, T. Physical properties and ease of operation of a wireless intraoral x-ray sensor. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2005, 100, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farman, A.G.; Farman, T.T. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2005, 99, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kitagawa, H.; Scheetz, J.; Farman, A. Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2003, 32, 408–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Okoro, C.; Vartanian, A.; Toussaint, K.C. Development of a handheld smart dental instrument for root canal imaging. J. Biomed. Opt. 2016, 21, 114002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melius, B.; Jiang, J.; Zhu, Q. Measurement of the Distance Between the Minor Foramen and the Anatomic Apex by Digital and Conventional Radiography. J. Endod. 2002, 28, 125–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westphalen, V.; de Moraes, I.G.; Westphalen, F.; Martins, W.; Souza, P.C. Conventional and digital radiographic methods in the detection of simulated external root resorptions: A comparative study. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2004, 33, 233–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakhdari, S.; Khalilak, Z.; Najafi, E.; Cheraghi, R. Diagnostic Accuracy of Charge-coupled Device Sensor and Photostimulable Phosphor Plate Receptor in the Detection of External Root Resorption In Vitro. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 2015, 9, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, P.; Meylan, C.; Agar-Newman, D.; Geneau, D.; Epp-Stobbe, A.; Lenetsky, S.; Klimstra, M. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Wearable Satellite System Technology for Linear Sprint Profiling: Technological Innovations and Practical Applications. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2024, 38, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Araki, K.; Endo, A.; Okano, T. An objective comparison of four digital intra-oral radiographic systems: Sensitometric properties and resolution. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2000, 29, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandre, R.H.; Pajak, J.C.; Abdel-Nabi, H.; Farman, T.T.; Farman, A.G. Comparison of observer performance in determining the position of endodontic files with physical measures in the evaluation of dental X-ray imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2000, 29, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamatakis, H.C.; Welander, U.; McDavid, W.D. Physical properties of a photostimulable phosphor system for intra-oral radiography. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2000, 29, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Greene, T.C.; Nishino, T.K.; Willis, C.E. Evaluation of cassette-based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Detector Tests. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2016, 17, 391–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann. ICRP 2004, 34, 1–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenzel, A.; Frandsen, E.; Hintze, H. Patient discomfort and cross-infection control in bitewing examination with a storage phosphor plate and a CCD-based sensor. J. Dent. 1999, 27, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cattoni, F.; Merlone, A.; Broggi, R.; Manacorda, M.; Vinci, R. Computer-assisted prosthetic planning and implant design with integrated digital bite registration: A treatment protocol. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2021, 35, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Database | Search Strategy |
---|---|
PuMed/MEDLINE | ((“wireless technology” OR “wireless sensors” OR “sensors” OR “dental digital radiography” OR “dental radiovisiography” OR “dental radiography” OR “diagnostic imaging” OR “digital technology” OR “dental radiography” OR “digital imaging” OR “bitewing radiography” OR “radiation dosage”) AND “caries detection” AND “dental caries diagnosis” AND “dental pulp diseases” AND “root canal therapy” AND “periapical disease” AND “endodontics”) |
Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“wireless technology” OR “wireless sensors” OR “sensors” OR “dental digital radiography” OR “dental radiovisiography” OR “dental radiography” OR “diagnostic imaging” OR “digital technology” OR “dental radiography” OR “digital imaging” OR “bitewing radiography” OR “radiation dosage”) AND “caries detection” AND “dental caries diagnosis ” AND “dental pulp diseases” AND “root canal therapy” AND “periapical disease” AND “endodontics”) |
Scielo | (“wireless technology” OR “wireless sensors” OR “sensors” OR “dental digital radiography” OR “dental radiovisiography” OR “dental radiography” OR “diagnostic imaging” OR “digital technology” OR “dental radiography” OR “digital imaging” OR “bitewing radiography” OR “radiation dosage”) AND “caries detection” AND “dental caries diagnosis” AND “dental pulp diseases” AND “root canal therapy” AND “periapical disease” AND “endodontics” |
Embase | (‘wireless technology’/exp OR ‘wireless sensors’/exp OR ‘sensors’/exp OR ‘dental digital radiography’/exp OR ‘dental radiovisiography’/exp OR ‘dental radiography’/exp OR ‘diagnostic imaging’/exp OR ‘digital technology’/exp OR ‘dental radiography’/exp OR ‘digital imaging’/exp OR ‘bitewing radiography’/exp OR ‘radiation dosage’/exp) AND ‘caries detection’/exp AND ‘dental caries diagnosis’/exp AND ‘dental pulp diseases’/exp AND ‘root canal therapy’/exp AND ‘periapical disease’/exp AND ‘endodontics’/exp |
Web of Science | TS = (“wireless technology” OR “wireless sensors” OR “sensors” OR “dental digital radiography” OR “dental radiovisiography” OR “dental radiography” OR “diagnostic imaging” OR “digital technology” OR “dental radiography” OR “digital imaging” OR “bitewing radiography” OR “radiation dosage”) AND TS = (“caries detection” AND “dental caries diagnosis” AND “dental pulp diseases” AND “root canal therapy” AND “periapical disease” AND “endodontics”) |
Google Scholar | “wireless technology” OR “wireless sensors” OR “sensors” OR “dental digital radiography” OR “dental radiovisiography” OR “dental radiography” OR “diagnostic imaging” OR “digital technology” OR “dental radiography” OR “digital imaging” OR “bitewing radiography” OR “radiation dosage” AND “caries detection” AND “dental caries diagnosis” AND “dental pulp diseases” AND “root canal therapy” AND “periapical disease” AND “endodontics” |
Researchers and Publication Date | Nation | Study Design | Sample | Principal Purpose |
---|---|---|---|---|
Melo et al., 2019 [14] | Brazil | In vitro | 40 teeth | Investigating the effect of varying exposure periods on caries diagnosis and image quality with a wireless procedure. |
Hellén-Halme et al., 2013 [15] | Sweden | Observational | 1 patient | Determining patient radiation levels resulting from 60 kV and 70 kV exposures for bitewing radiographs. |
Hellén-Halme 2011 [16] | Sweden | In vitro | 100 teeth | Comparing the influence of two distinct tube voltages on clinicians’ ability to identify proximal carious lesions in digital radiographs |
Matzen et al., 2009 [17] | Denmark | Observational | 110 patients | Comparing patient experience and image retake frequency between digital receptors and conventional film in wisdom teeth radiography. |
Kamburoglu et al., 2008 [18] | Israel | Ex vivo | 2 human cadaver mandibles | Comparing the diagnostic precision of conventional film, wireless digital sensors, and phosphor plates in identifying simulated external root resorption |
Haiter-Neto et al., 2007 [19] | Brazil | In vitro | 100 teeth | To evaluate the radiographic efficacy in detecting proximal carious lesions of two intraoral digital systems. |
Athar et al., 2008 [20] | USA | Ex vivo | 14 human cadaver mandibles | Assessing the measurement precision of a wireless image receptor relative to two alternative digital receptors for endodontic radiographic analysis. |
Tsuchida et al., 2005 [21] | Japan | Observational | 10 patients | An assessment was conducted on a wireless system, focusing on its physical attributes and operational simplicity. |
Farman et al., 2005 [22] | USA | In vitro | 18 teeth | Investigating the differences in spatial resolution, contrast visibility, and exposure tolerance among 18 dental X-ray detectors. |
Authors/ Publication Year | Intervention/ Control Group | Quality Image | Radiation | Comfort |
---|---|---|---|---|
Melo et al., 2019 [14] | Teeth underwent radiography utilizing a Schick CDR Wireless sensor across a range of exposure durations: 0.06, 0.10, 0.13, 0.16, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, and 0.32 s. The scores were juxtaposed with histological sections of the teeth for comparison. | A 0.20-s exposure time produced consistent mean pixel values across both phases, revealing two distinct patterns. This decrease does not compromise image quality. | The Az values ranged from 0.53 to 0.62 across different exposure durations. Statistical evaluation indicated that the 0.25-s exposure period yielded the highest scores, significantly surpassing those obtained at 0.30 s and 0.35 s. | Not apply |
Hellén-Halme et al., 2013 [15] | The distribution of absorbed doses resulting from two bitewing exposures was evaluated using a Planmeca DIXI2 and a CDR wireless sensor at tube voltages of 60 and 70 kV. | Reducing the dose to the patient did not compromise the image quality for the assessment of carious lesions. | Patient radiation dose is lowered when the tube voltage is decreased from 70 to 60 kV. | Not reported |
Hellén-Halme 2011 [16] | Teeth underwent radiographic examination twice, employing wireless sensors, with tube voltages set at 60 and 70 kV, following a standardized protocol. Teeth histology was used as the definitive standard for assessment. | There was no statistically significant disparity in the precision of diagnosing approximal carious lesions between the two voltage settings. | A consensus among 5 observers deemed 70 kV radiographs superior for visualizing dentin lesions compared to 60 kV radiographs. The exposure durations at 70 kV were shorter than those at 60 kV. | Not apply |
Matzen et al., 2009 [17] | Intraoral radiographs of both mandibular third molar areas were taken for each patient using two selected digital systems from a pool of five options. | Not reported | A significantly higher number of retakes were required with CDR-APS compared to CDR wireless (p < 0.019). Additionally, notable differences were observed between the PSP plates and wired sensors, with a higher retake rate seen when using wired sensors. | The variation in VAS scores within individual patients suggests that the wire is the main cause of discomfort, as no significant differences were found between CDR wireless and other digital receptors |
Kamburoglu et al., 2008 [18] | Radiographs taken using conventional methods and digital technologies (CCD and PSP sensors) | The conventional film and wireless sensor produced a higher proportion of accurate readings compared to the PSP receptor. | Digital sensors can be utilized, offering the advantage of a lower radiation dose. | Not apply |
Haiter-Neto et al., 2007 [19] | X-rays of cavity-free proximal surfaces were evaluated using Digora FMX, Digora Optime, Schick CDR, and wireless systems for comparison, with caries presence confirmed by histological examination. | Digora Optime and the wireless sensor exhibited significantly higher sensitivities compared to the other systems, whereas the wireless sensor demonstrated significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value than Digora Optime (p < 0.02). | The exposure durations for the chosen images were shorter for CDR and wireless sensors. | Not apply |
Athar et al., 2008 [20] | Wireless image sensor was compared to two other types of digital image receptors. | The accuracy of raters in identifying structures of interest was significantly lower when using storage phosphor plates, whereas the wireless sensor showed the highest accuracy. | Not reported | Not apply |
Tsuchida et al., 2005 [21] | A wireless sensor was compared to a wired sensor. | Both wired and wireless systems exhibited identical Modulation Transfer Functions, with comparable Detective Quantum Efficiency results. | The two sensors showed identical responses to radiation exposure, with gray levels decreasing linearly from 0 to 150 μGy and reaching maximum saturation at or above 150 μGy. | The visual analog scores assessing the discomfort associated with inserting and placing both the wireless and wired sensors in the mouth were similar. |
Farman et al., 2005 [22] | Spatial resolution was tested with a 0.025 mm lead phantom grid (1.5–20 lp/mm). Contrast perception was evaluated using a 7 mm aluminum device featuring depth increments (0.1–0.9 mm) and a 1.5 mm defect. Relative exposure latitude was established through expert consensus, defining the lower limit as clear enamel-dentin junction visibility and the upper limit as pixel blooming or excessive burnout. | Eighteen detectors achieved contrast resolution of 0.2 mm or better through 7 mm aluminum, with top performance seen in wireless sensors and five additional detectors. | The lowest exposure ranges were observed in wireless sensors and four other systems. | Not apply |
Investigation | Conditions Totally Fulfilled | Proportion of Fulfillment |
---|---|---|
Melo et al., 2019 [14] | 14 | 87.5% |
Hellén-Halme et al., 2013 [15] | 13 | 81.3% |
Hellén-Halme 2011 [16] | 13 | 81.3% |
Matzen et al., 2009 [17] | 14 | 87.5% |
Kamburoglu et al., 2008 [18] | 12 | 75% |
Haiter-Neto et al., 2007 [19] | 13 | 81.3% |
Athar et al., 2008 [20] | 13 | 81.3% |
Tsuchida et al., 2005 [21] | 12 | 75% |
Farman et al., 2005 [22] | 13 | 81.3% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ardila, C.M.; Vivares-Builes, A.M.; Pineda-Vélez, E. Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Patient Comfort Associated with Wireless Sensors in Digital Radiography: A Systematic Review. Dent. J. 2024, 12, 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080267
Ardila CM, Vivares-Builes AM, Pineda-Vélez E. Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Patient Comfort Associated with Wireless Sensors in Digital Radiography: A Systematic Review. Dentistry Journal. 2024; 12(8):267. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080267
Chicago/Turabian StyleArdila, Carlos M., Annie M. Vivares-Builes, and Eliana Pineda-Vélez. 2024. "Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Patient Comfort Associated with Wireless Sensors in Digital Radiography: A Systematic Review" Dentistry Journal 12, no. 8: 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080267