MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2306 subjects were selected from the patient archives of a large dental hospital and the chronological age for each subject was recorded. This age was assigned to each specific stage of dental development for each tooth to create a RDS. To validate this RDS, a further 484 subjects were randomly chosen from the patient archives and their dental age was assessed based on the scores from the RDS. Dental age was estimated using meta-analysis command corresponding to random effects statistical model. Chronological age (CA) and Dental Age (DA) were compared using the paired t-test.
RESULTS: The overall difference between the chronological and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.05 years (2.6 weeks) for males and 0.03 years (1.6 weeks) for females. The paired t-test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the chronological and dental age (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The validated southern Chinese reference dataset based on dental maturation accurately estimated the chronological age.
METHODS: A ball phantom was scanned using panoramic mode of the Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid CBCT unit (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) with standard exposure settings used in clinical practice (60 kV, 2 mA, and maximum FOV). An automated calculator algorithm was developed in MATLAB platform. Two parameters associated with panoramic image distortion such as balls diameter and distance between middle and tenth balls were measured. These automated measurements were compared with manual measurement using the Planmeca Romexis and ImageJ software.
RESULTS: The findings showed smaller deviation in distance difference measurements by proposed automated calculator (ranged 3.83 mm) as compared to manual measurements (ranged 5.00 for Romexis and 5.12 mm for ImageJ software). There was a significant difference (p
DESIGN: Single-centre prospective two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Orthodontic Clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult orthodontic patients aged 18-35 years, indicated for DPT and LC, who were fit and healthy with a body mass index of 18.5-25.0, not contraindicated to radiographic examination, not pregnant, and did not have a history of facial or skeletal abnormalities or bone diseases were included.
METHODS: Thirty-eight adult orthodontic patients were randomised into control and intervention groups. DPT and LC radiographs in the control group were obtained using standard scanning parameters as prescribed by the manufacturer using Orthopantomograph® OP300 by Instrumentarium. Scanning parameters in the intervention group were reduced by 60% for DPT (60 kV, 3.2 mA) and 30% for LC (85 kV, 8 mA). A five-point rating scale was used for the assessment of image quality. Images were evaluated for diagnostic performance by detection of anatomical landmarks. Mann-Whitney test was performed to compare the quality and diagnostic performance of the images and the observer agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: For image quality, the control group produced slightly lower median scores (DPT 2.0, LC 2.0) compared to the intervention group (DPT 2.0, LC 3.0). For diagnostic performance, both groups showed similar median scores (DPT 21.0, LC 32.0). The differences between control and intervention groups for both modalities were not statistically significant. The average scores for intra-observer agreement were excellent (ICC 0.917) and inter-observer agreement was good (ICC 0.822).
CONCLUSION: Minimising radiation exposure by reducing scanning parameters on digital DPT by 60% and LC by 30% on Intsrumentarium 300 OP did not affect the quality and diagnostic performance of the images. Thus, scanning parameters on digital DPT and LC should be reduced when taking radiographs.