Advertisement

Digital Bitewing Radiographs

  • Gerd GöstemeyerEmail author
  • Falk Schwendicke
Chapter

Abstract

Bitewing radiography is an established aid for detection and evaluation of proximal caries lesions. With the introduction of digital radiography, new modalities became available which potentially can add value to caries detection and diagnosis. Digital radiography may provide some benefits over conventional radiographs. It allows for obtaining images with the same quality as conventional radiographs by use of lower radiation doses, by use of computer-aided image processing various parameters on the digital image can be adjusted, by using computer analyses there is the potential for less subjectivity. However, current technology is not more accurate than a human observer.

Keywords

Conventional radiography Digital radiography Caries detection Dental caries Caries diagnosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Wenzel A. Radiographic display of carious lesions and cavitation in approximal surfaces: advantages and drawbacks of conventional and advanced modalities. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(4):251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wenzel A, Moystad A. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68(2):106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neuhaus KW, et al. Traditional lesion detection aids. Monogr Oral Sci. 2009;21:42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hintze H. Diagnostic accuracy of two software modalities for detection of caries lesions in digital radiographs from four dental systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(2):78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenzel A. Bitewing and digital bitewing radiography for detection of caries lesions. J Dent Res. 2004;83 Spec No C:C72–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bahrami G, Hagstrom C, Wenzel A. Bitewing examination with four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32(5):317–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crombie K, et al. Comparing the performance of storage phosphor plate and insight film images for the detection of proximal caries depth. SADJ. 2009;64(10):452, 454–6, 458–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Minston W, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance on approximal caries detection among Swedish and Chinese senior dental students using analogue and digital radiographs. Swed Dent J. 2013;37(2):79–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muchhal M, et al. Spanning the horizon of accuracy of different intraoral radiographic modalities: a systematic review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(12):1206–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuvvula S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital radiography and conventional radiography for proximal caries detection in primary teeth: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2016;34(4):300–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dias da Silva PR, et al. Accuracy of direct digital radiography for detecting occlusal caries in primary teeth compared with conventional radiography and visual inspection: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(6):362–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Stelt PF. Better imaging: the advantages of digital radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(Suppl):7S–13S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Van der Stelt PF. Does digital radiography increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32(2):124–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berkhout WE, et al. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bin-Shuwaish M, et al. Estimation of clinical axial extension of class II caries lesions with ultraspeed and digital radiographs: an in-vivo study. Oper Dent. 2008;33(6):613–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russo JM, Russo JA, Guelmann M. Digital radiography: a survey of pediatric dentists. J Dent Child (Chic). 2006;73(3):132–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wenzel A, et al. Impact of lossy image compression on accuracy of caries detection in digital images taken with a storage phosphor system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996;81(3):351–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulze RK, Richter A, d’Hoedt B. The effect of wavelet and discrete cosine transform compression of digital radiographs on the detection of subtle proximal caries. ROC analysis. Caries Res. 2008;42(5):334–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Analoui M, Stookey GK. Direct digital radiography for caries detection and analysis. Monogr Oral Sci. 2000;17:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neuhaus KW, et al. Novel lesion detection aids. Monogr Oral Sci. 2009;21:52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wenzel A, Anthonisen PN, Juul MB. Reproducibility in the assessment of caries lesion behaviour: a comparison between conventional film and subtraction radiography. Caries Res. 2000;34(3):214–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sansare K, et al. Should cavitation in proximal surfaces be reported in cone beam computed tomography examination? Caries Res. 2014;48(3):208–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwendicke F, Tzschoppe M, Paris S. Radiographic caries detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43:924–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations