Ew. Hickman et al., IDENTIFICATION OF THE TEMPOROMANDIBULAR-JOINT AND ADJACENT CEPHALOMETRIC LANDMARKS USING A DUAL SENSITIVITY SCREEN-CASSETTE SYSTEM, Dento-maxillo-facial radiology, 25(5), 1996, pp. 274-282
Objectives. Clinical evaluation of a cassette with dual speed screens
for cephalometric radiography. Methods. Two lateral cephalometric radi
ographs were taken on 20 consenting subjects using the TMJ Orthoceph S
limline Cassette System (TOSCS), incorporating circular Trimax 12 scre
ens in the area adjacent to the temporomandibular joint, and a control
cassette (Trimax 8 screens). Ten pairs of radiographs with optimal im
age quality were randomly presented to 10 observers trained in cephalo
metric interpretation, Observers rated the overall diagnostic quality
of each radiograph and of the TMJ region on an ordinal scale, They the
n located specific landmarks and traced the TMJ anatomy using acetate
overlays, Overlays were digitized by a single operator who repeated tr
acing placements and digitizations to determine the error of recording
method, Landmark variability was compared in the x- and y-axis by the
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test (p < 0.05). Six repeat traci
ngs were performed and assessed by percentage of repeated observations
above the maximum affordable error, Fossa space values were analyzed
by the coefficient of variation (CV). The variability of the angular a
nd linear values was also compared, Results. TOSCS image quality was p
erceived as significantly better than the control, Method error was 0.
34 mm in the x-axis and 0.4 mm in the y-axis, Interobserver variabilit
y was 2 to 3 times greater than intraobserver, There was less variabil
ity with TOSCS for identification of basion (x-axis), center-of-rotati
on (x-axis) and condyle (posterior) (x-axis), However, this was clinic
ally insignificant, Accurate determination of the fossa space was not
possible as CV varied from 23 to 84%. No differences in the variabilit
y of angular or linear values variability were found. Conclusions. Whi
le observers preferred TOSCS, no significant clinical differences coul
d be demonstrated between the two systems. Copyright (C) 1996 Elsevier
Science Ltd for IADMFR.