A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 144

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1002
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3142
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Repeat analysis of intraoral digital imaging performed by undergraduate students using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor: An institutional case study. | LitMetric

Purpose: This study was performed to quantify the repeat rate of imaging acquisitions based on different clinical examinations, and to assess the prevalence of error types in intraoral bitewing and periapical imaging using a digital complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) intraoral sensor.

Materials And Methods: A total of 8,030 intraoral images were retrospectively collected from 3 groups of undergraduate clinical dental students. The type of examination, stage of the procedure, and reasons for repetition were analysed and recorded. The repeat rate was calculated as the total number of repeated images divided by the total number of examinations. The weighted Cohen's kappa for inter- and intra-observer agreement was used after calibration and prior to image analysis.

Results: The overall repeat rate on intraoral periapical images was 34.4%. A total of 1,978 repeated periapical images were from endodontic assessment, which included working length estimation (WLE), trial gutta-percha (tGP), obturation, and removal of gutta-percha (rGP). In the endodontic imaging, the highest repeat rate was from WLE (51.9%) followed by tGP (48.5%), obturation (42.2%), and rGP (35.6%). In bitewing images, the repeat rate was 15.1% and poor angulation was identified as the most common cause of error. A substantial level of intra- and interobserver agreement was achieved.

Conclusion: The repeat rates in this study were relatively high, especially for certain clinical procedures, warranting training in optimization techniques and radiation protection. Repeat analysis should be performed from time to time to enhance quality assurance and hence deliver high-quality health services to patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738505PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.2017.47.4.233DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

repeat rate
20
repeat
8
repeat analysis
8
total number
8
periapical images
8
intraoral
5
rate
5
images
5
analysis intraoral
4
intraoral digital
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!