Xeroradiographs and Kodak Ektaspeed film were compared with Kodak Ultraspeed film for their ability to reveal calculus deposits. Jaw specimens from cadavers having root surfaces that were either free of calculus or had calculus deposits were used as test objects. The specimens were first radiographed using xeroradiographic plates or radiographic film as the image receptors. Following radiography of the specimens, the actual presence of calculus was determined by direct inspection and probing with an explorer. Thirteen oral radiologists scored the xeroradiographic and film images for the presence of calculus on the 25 selected mesial or distal surfaces. The results showed that dentists detected 55 to 60% of the calculus deposits while at the same time they considered calculus to be present on 10 to 28% of the calculus-free surfaces. ROC analysis of the radiographic decisions showed no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the dentists using xeroradiographic images, Ektaspeed film, or Ultraspeed film except that observers using Ultraspeed film performed better than when using conventional contrast xeroradiographs viewed in reflected light. In terms of patient dose, xeroradiographs and Ektaspeed film are preferred to Ultraspeed film.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
White et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: