Affiliation:
1. Federal University of Espírito Santo
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the influence of notebook computers screens and undergraduate level of dental students in the radiographic detection of carious lesions. Methods: Bitewing digital radiographs were presented to 3rd and 5th year dental students in three different notebooks computers: Notebook 1 with anti-glare screen (1366×768 pixels), Notebook 2 without anti-glare screen (1366×768 pixels), and Notebook 3 with anti-glare screen (1920×1080 pixels). A reference standard based on a consensus analysis was set by three senior professors of Oral Radiology and Cariology. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values were measured and submitted to two-way ANOVA at a significance level of 5%. Results: Notebook 2 provided significantly lower sensitivity values (Mean 56.5% ± 2.94) than notebook 3 (71.1% ± 2.82) (p = 0.002). We found no statistically significant differences between the two undergraduate years (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The anti-glare screen of notebook computers screens can influence the radiographic detection of carious lesions, but the undergraduate level of dental students does not influence this diagnostic task.
Funder
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Publisher
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Reference21 articles.
1. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Danielsen B, Nyvad B. Reliability of visual examination, fibre-optic transillumination, and bite-wing radiography, and reproducibility of direct visual examination following tooth separation for the identification of cavitated carious lesions in contacting approximal surfaces. Caries Res. 1998;32(3):204-9. doi: 10.1159/000016454.
2. Santos JR, Massoni ACLT, Rosenblatt A. [Dentine lesions under non-cavitated enamel: a prevalence study]. Rev Odonto Cienc. 2008;23(3):263-7. Portuguese.
3. Mansour S, Ajdaharian J, Nabelsi T, Chan G, Wilder-Smith P. Comparison of caries diagnostic modalities: a clinical study in 40 subjects. Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Dec;48(10):924-8. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22460.
4. Wenzel A. Dental Caries. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. UK, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p.270-81.
5. Shintaku WH, Scarbecz M, Venturin JS. Evaluation of interproximal caries using the IPad 2 and a liquid crystal display monitor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 May;113(5):e40-4. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2011.11.008.