Reject Rates of Radiographic Images in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Literature Review

被引:16
作者
Yeung, Andy Wai Kan [1 ]
Wong, Natalie Sui Miu [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Dent, Appl Oral Sci & Community Dent Care, Oral & Maxillofacial Radiol, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Dent, Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
cone beam computed tomography; dental imaging; image retake; bitewing; periapical; panoramic; lateral cephalography; BEAM COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; REEXPOSURE RATES; PATIENT MOVEMENT; QUALITY; CT; DENTISTRY; MOTION; ERRORS; AUDIT; ALARA;
D O I
10.3390/ijerph18158076
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This report surveyed the image reject rates of intra-oral, extra-oral, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging in the academic literature. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were queried in mid-April 2021. Manual screening of the reference lists of the identified publications was performed to identify papers missed from the database search. All publications returned by the searches were initially included. Exclusion criteria included irrelevance, no reporting of reject rate, no access to the article, and not original article. The total number of images and the number of rejects were recorded for each type of radiographic images. Factors and commonest errors associated with the rejects were recorded. Twenty-six original articles were identified and reviewed. The average reject rate was 11.25% for bitewings, 16.38% for periapicals, 4.10% for panoramics, 6.08% for lateral cephalography, and 2.77% for CBCT. Positioning error and patient movement were two common reasons for the rejects. The average reject rates computed from data pooled across studies should form the reference values for quality assurance programs to follow. Future reject analysis studies should report more radiographic parameters such as type of collimation for intra-oral radiography and patient posture for CBCT.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
Acharya Shruthi, 2015, Contemp Clin Dent, V6, P392, DOI 10.4103/0976-237X.161898
[2]  
Amer Dent Assoc Council Sci Affair, 2006, J AM DENT ASSOC, V137, P1304
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2017, CAN J DENT HYG
[4]   Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use [J].
Arai, Y ;
Tammisalo, E ;
Iwai, K ;
Hashimoto, K ;
Shinoda, K .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 1999, 28 (04) :245-248
[5]  
Behroozi H., 2015, J MAZ U MED SCI, V25, P209
[6]   Image quality of two solid-state and three photostimulable phosphor plate digital panoramic systems, and treatment planning of mandibular third molar removal [J].
Benediktsdottir, IS ;
Hintze, H ;
Petersen, JK ;
Wenzel, A .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2003, 32 (01) :39-44
[7]  
Bissoon AK, 2012, W INDIAN MED J, V61, P733
[8]   Trends in maxillofacial imaging [J].
Boeddinghaus, R. ;
Whyte, A. .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 73 (01) :4-18
[9]   Relevance of head motion in dental cone-beam CT scanner images depending on patient positioning [J].
Bontempi, Marco ;
Bettuzzi, Matteo ;
Casali, Franco ;
Pasini, Alessandro ;
Rossi, Alberto ;
Ariu, Marilu .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 2008, 3 (3-4) :249-255
[10]   A randomized double blinded study to assess the efficacy of a laser-guided collimator on dental radiography training [J].
Chau, A. C. M. ;
Li, T. K. L. ;
Wong, J. .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2006, 35 (03) :200-204