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
[21]  
Jensen T W, 1978, J Dent Educ, V42, P481
[22]   Evaluation of motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography with three different patient positioning [J].
Keris, Elif Yildizer ;
Demirel, Oguzhan ;
Ozdede, Melih .
ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 37 (02) :276-281
[23]  
Macleod Iain, 2008, Dent Update, V35, P590
[24]   Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film [J].
Matzen, Louise Hauge ;
Christensen, Jennifer ;
Wenzel, Ann .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY, 2009, 107 (04) :566-572
[25]   A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results [J].
Mozzo, P ;
Procacci, C ;
Tacconi, A ;
Martini, PT ;
Andreis, IAB .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 1998, 8 (09) :1558-1564
[26]   Comparison of re-exposure rates of intraoral radiographs between dental students and trained dental assistants in an oral and maxillofacial radiology clinic [J].
Mupparapu, M. ;
Jariwala, S. ;
Singer, S. R. ;
Kim, I. H. ;
Janal, M. .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2007, 36 (04) :224-228
[27]  
Nenad Monica Williamson, 2016, J Dent Hyg, V90, P386
[28]   An audit of film reject and repeat rates in a department of dental radiology [J].
Nixon, PP ;
Thorogood, J ;
Holloway, J ;
Smith, NJD .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1995, 68 (816) :1304-1307
[29]   Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement [J].
Oenning, Anne Caroline ;
Jacobs, Reinhilde ;
Pauwels, Ruben ;
Stratis, Andreas ;
Hedesiu, Mihaela ;
Salmon, Benjamin .
PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2018, 48 (03) :308-316
[30]  
Ortendahl T W, 1994, Br J Orthod, V21, P45