Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the subjective image quality of the newer generation Schick CDR detector employing complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology with images using the earlier generation charge-coupled device (CCD) Schick CDR detector.


METHODS
All radiographic images were made using the same formalin-fixed adult cadaver maxilla with surrounding natural soft tissues in place. The X-ray generator used was a Villa Sistemi Medicali Diamatic srl AP/Explor X operated at 70 kVp and 8 mA. The source-to-detector distance was set at 38 cm and an optical bench was used to ensure reproducible beam geometry. A range of exposures was applied for both detectors. A panel of nine dentists independently observed and evaluated images made at each exposure. For both detectors, the three images ranked highest were randomized for re-evaluation in panels of six images. Each image was repeated randomly a total of 10 times. Features chosen as observation points were: (1) proximal dental caries; (2) gingival soft tissues; (3) cortical bone; (4) root canal space; (5) root apices; (6) periodontal ligament space; and (7) endodontic instrument tip clarity. Comparisons were made by use of odds ratio analysis applying a 95% confidence level. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were computed to assess consistency in observer ratings.


RESULTS
The CMOS sensor was rated as outperforming its CCD predecessor for depiction of cortical bone and root apices; the CCD detector was only rated superior for depiction of root canal space. No significant difference was found between the two detectors in perceived depiction of proximal dental caries, gingival soft tissues, periodontal ligament space or endodontic instruments. Combining rating scores from each of the tasks, CMOS and CCD detectors had a similar proportion of image ratings of excellent, acceptable and poor.


CONCLUSIONS
Regarding subjective image quality, the Schick CMOS and CCD detectors were perceived to produce radiographic images of similar overall quality.
Kitagawa
H
H
School of Dentistry, The University of Louisville, 501 South Preston Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA.
Scheetz
J P
JP
Farman
A G
AG
D000328:Adult; D002102:Cadaver; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D004867:Equipment Design; D005881:Gingiva / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation; D008437:Maxilla / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D015588:Observer Variation; D016017:Odds Ratio; D010513:Periodontal Ligament / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D019252:Radiography, Dental, Digital / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018915:Root Canal Preparation / Q000295:instrumentation; D012666:Semiconductors; D019227:Tooth Apex / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging