Imaging Sci Dent.  2014 Sep;44(3):199-205. 10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.199.

Effect of changing the kilovoltage peak on radiographic caries assessment in digital and conventional radiography

• Zayet MK
• Helaly YR
• Eiid SB

• KMID: 1974483
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.3.199

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study aimed to investigate the effect of changing the kilovoltage peak (kVp) on the radiographic assessment of dental caries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seventy-five extracted posterior teeth with proximal caries or apparently sound proximal surfaces were radiographed with conventional E-speed films and a photostimulable phosphor system using 60 kVp and 70 kVp for the caries assessment. The images were evaluated by three oral radiologists and compared with the results of the stereomicroscope analysis.
RESULTS
No statistically significant difference was found between 60 kVp and 70 kVp for the caries detection, determination of caries extension into dentin, and caries severity in either the conventional or the digital images. Good to very good inter-observer and intra-observer agreements were found for both kilovoltage values on the conventional and digital images.
CONCLUSION
Changing the kilovoltage between 60 kVp and 70 kVp had no obvious effect on the detection of proximal caries or determination of its extension or severity.

Keyword

Diagnosis, Oral; Dental Caries; Digital Radiography, Dental; Radiography, Dental

MeSH Terms

Dental Caries
Dentin
Diagnosis, Oral
Radiography*
Radiography, Dental
Radiography, Dental, Digital
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Digital radiographic images show the teeth radiographed with 60 kVp (A) and 70 kVp (B).

• 

  Fig. 2 Stereomicroscopic image (32× magnification) of sectioned tooth shows advanced caries in the proximal surface.

Reference

1. Riley JL 3rd, Gordan VV, Rindal DB, Fellows JL, Ajmo CT, Amundson C, et al. Preferences for caries prevention agents in adult patients: findings from the dental practice-based research network. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010; 38:360–370.

2. Kandel EA, Richards JM, Binkley CJ. Childhood caries in the state of Kentucky, USA: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2012; 12:38.

3. Ayele FA, Taye BW, Ayele TA, Gelaye KA. Predictors of dental caries among children 7-14 years old in Northwest Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2013; 13:7.

4. Colak H, Dülgergil CT, Dalli M, Hamidi MM. Early childhood caries update: a review of causes, diagnoses, and treatments. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2013; 4:29–38.

5. Yang J, Dutra V. Utility of radiology, laser fluorescence, and transillumination. Dent Clin North Am. 2005; 49:739–752.

6. Souza-Zaroni WC, Ciccone JC, Souza-Gabriel AE, Ramos RP, Corona SA, Palma-Dibb RG. Validity and reproducibility of different combinations of methods for occlusal caries detection: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res. 2006; 40:194–201.

7. Ritter AV, Ramos MD, Astorga F, Shugars DA, Bader JD. Visual-tactile versus radiographic caries detection agreement in caries-active adults. J Public Health Dent. 2013; 73:252–260.

8. Fuhrmann AW. Current practice in conventional and digital intraoral radiography: problems and solutions. Int J Comput Dent. 2006; 9:61–68.

9. Wenzel A, Gröndahl HG. Direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int Dent J. 1995; 45:27–34.

10. Farman AG, Levato CM, Gane D, Scarfe WC. In practice: how going digital will affect the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:Suppl. 14S–19S.

11. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Bosmans H. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice. Eur Radiol. 2010; 20:2637–2655.

12. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Noack MJ. Conventional, digital and contrast-enhanced bitewing radiographs in the decision to restore approximal carious lesions. Caries Res. 2001; 35:193–199.

13. Price C, Ergül N. A comparison of a film-based and a direct digital dental radiographic system using a proximal caries model. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1997; 26:45–52.

14. Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Platin E, Nair M. A comparison of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film and the Siemens Sidexis digital imaging system for caries detection using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 85:113–118.

15. Uprichard KK, Potter BJ, Russell CM, Schafer TE, Adair S, Weller RN. Comparison of direct digital and conventional radiography for the detection of proximal surface caries in the mixed dentition. Pediatr Dent. 2000; 22:9–15.

16. White SC, Yoon DC. Comparative performance of digital and conventional images for detecting proximal surface caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1997; 26:32–38.

17. Alkurt MT, Peker I, Bala O, Altunkaynak B. In vitro comparison of four different dental X-ray films and direct digital radiography for proximal caries detection. Oper Dent. 2007; 32:504–509.

18. Rockenbach MI, Veeck EB, da Costa NP. Detection of proximal caries in conventional and digital radiographs: an in vitro study. Stomatologija. 2008; 10:115–120.

19. Crombie K, Parker ME, Nortje CJ, Sanderink GC. Comparing the performance of storage phosphor plate and Insight film images for the detection of proximal caries depth. SADJ. 2009; 64:452–459.

20. Senel B, Kamburoglu K, Uçok O, Yüksel SP, Ozen T, Avsever H. Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39:501–511.

21. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;2009.

22. Thunthy KH, Manson-Hing LR. Effect of mAs and kVp on resolution and on image contrast. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1978; 46:454–461.

23. Helmrot E, Carlsson GA, Eckerdal O, Sandborg M. Influence of scattered radiation and tube potential on radiographic contrast: comparison of two different dental X-ray films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1991; 20:135–146.

24. Langland OE, Langlais RP, Preece JW. Principles of dental imaging. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2002.

25. Johnson ON, McNally MA, Essay CE. Essentials of dental radiography for dental assistants and hygienists. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall;2003.

26. Iannucci JM, Howerton LJ. Dental radiography: principles and techniques. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Saunders Elsevier;2006.

27. Ghom AG. Textbook of oral radiology. Delhi: Elsevier;2008.

28. Caldas Mde P, Ramos-Perez FM, de Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F. Comparative evaluation among different materials to replace soft tissue in oral radiology studies. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18:264–267.

29. Svenson B, Gröndahl HG, Petersson A, Olving A. Accuracy of radiographic caries diagnosis at different kilovoltages and two film speeds. Swed Dent J. 1985; 9:37–43.

30. Svenson B, Petersson A. Influence of tube voltage on radiographic diagnosis of caries in premolars and molars. Swed Dent J. 1991; 15:245–250.

31. Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Stachniss V, Wellnitz J, Schulte AG. Detection of cavitated or non-cavitated approximal enamel caries lesions using CMOS and CCD digital X-ray sensors and conventional D and F-speed films at different exposure conditions. Am J Dent. 2011; 24:74–78.

32. Svenson B, Welander U, Anneroth G, Söderfeldt B. Exposure parameters and their effects on diagnostic accuracy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994; 78:544–550.

33. Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S. Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36:75–79.

34. Sogur E, Baksı BG, Orhan K, Paksoy SC, Dogan S, Erdal YS, et al. Effect of tube potential and image receptor on the detection of natural proximal caries in primary teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2011; 15:901–907.