The Experts below are selected from a list of 81003 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Louise Akesson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of panoramic and intraoral Radiography and pocket probing for the measurement of the marginal bone level
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1992Co-Authors: Jan Hakansson, Louise Akesson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:Panoramic, bitewing and periapical Radiography and probing for measurement of the marginal bone level were compared. Altogether 237 sites of 23 patients were examined. Radiographs were taken with a splint containing steel balls to allow calculation of the enlargement of the radiographs. Probing was done before and during flap surgery using the same splint. The open bone measurement represented the true value. All radiographs were assessed by 5 observers. The mean enlargement of panoramic Radiography was 27% in the upper and 26% in the lower arch. For bitewing and periapical Radiography, it was 8% in the upper and 4-5% in the lower arch. All methods underestimated the bone loss. Probing bone level before surgery was most accurate, deviating at most 5% from the true value. Periapical Radiography was more accurate than panoramic and bitewing Radiography (p less than 0.001). Panoramic Radiography presented a slightly lower mean accuracy than bitewing Radiography (p less than 0.05). The underestimation of the bone loss ranged from 13 to 32% in orthopantomograms, 11-23% in bitewing and 9-20% in periapical radiographs. The interobserver variation of the radiographic methods was substantial.
-
comparison of panoramic and intraoral Radiography and pocket probing for the measurement of the marginal bone level
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1992Co-Authors: Jan Hakansson, Louise Akesson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:Abstract Panoramic, bitewing and periapical Radiography and probing for measurement of the marginal bone level were compared. Altogether 237 sites of 23 patients were examined. Radiographs were taken with a splint containing steel balls to allow calculation of the enlargement of the radiographs. Probing was done before and during flap surgery using the same splint. The open bone measurement represented the true value. All radiographs were assessed by 5 observers. The mean enlargement of panoramic Radiography was 27% in the upper and 26% in the lower arch. For bitewing and periapical Radiography, it was 8% in the upper and 4–5% in the lower arch. All methods underestimated the bone loss. Probing bone level before surgery was most accurate, deviating at most 5% from the true value. Periapical Radiography was more accurate than panoramic and bitewing Radiography (p < 0.001). Panoramic Radiography presented a slightly lower mean accuracy than bitewing Radiography (p<0.05). The underestimation of the bone loss ranged from 13 to 32% in orthopantomograms, 11–23% in bitewing and 9–20% in periapical radiographs. The interobserver variation of the radiographic methods was substantial.
Madeleine Rohlin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
direct digital Radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions a clinical study
Dental Traumatology, 1997Co-Authors: Boel Kullendorff, Kerstin Petersson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:The aim was to compare the observer performance of direct digital Radiography, with and without image processing, with that of conventional Radiography, for the detection of periapical bone lesions. For 50 patients, a conventional periapical radiograph using E-speed film was taken. Then, a direct digital image of the same area was made. The images presenting the periapical bone tissue of 59 roots were assessed by seven observers using a 5-point confidence scale. The digital images were first presented as original images, with default contrast and brightness set by the computer system. Following this, the observers were allowed to use the processing facilities for greyscale treatment. The results for original and processed direct digital images and for conventional radiographs were compared by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. The area under the ROC curve, calculated as P(A) value, was 0.88 for conventional film, 0.82 for original digital images and 0.78 for processed images. Corresponding Az values were slightly higher, 0.89, 0.84 and 0.81. Statistically significant differences between ROC areas calculated as P(A) values for the methods were found. Comparison between Az values showed no significant differences between conventional radiographs and original digital images, whereas the difference between Az values for original and processed digital images was still significant. It was concluded that conventional film Radiography performed slightly better for the detection of periapical bone lesions than direct digital Radiography and that image processing did not improve the observer performance.
-
comparison of panoramic and intraoral Radiography and pocket probing for the measurement of the marginal bone level
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1992Co-Authors: Jan Hakansson, Louise Akesson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:Panoramic, bitewing and periapical Radiography and probing for measurement of the marginal bone level were compared. Altogether 237 sites of 23 patients were examined. Radiographs were taken with a splint containing steel balls to allow calculation of the enlargement of the radiographs. Probing was done before and during flap surgery using the same splint. The open bone measurement represented the true value. All radiographs were assessed by 5 observers. The mean enlargement of panoramic Radiography was 27% in the upper and 26% in the lower arch. For bitewing and periapical Radiography, it was 8% in the upper and 4-5% in the lower arch. All methods underestimated the bone loss. Probing bone level before surgery was most accurate, deviating at most 5% from the true value. Periapical Radiography was more accurate than panoramic and bitewing Radiography (p less than 0.001). Panoramic Radiography presented a slightly lower mean accuracy than bitewing Radiography (p less than 0.05). The underestimation of the bone loss ranged from 13 to 32% in orthopantomograms, 11-23% in bitewing and 9-20% in periapical radiographs. The interobserver variation of the radiographic methods was substantial.
-
comparison of panoramic and intraoral Radiography and pocket probing for the measurement of the marginal bone level
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1992Co-Authors: Jan Hakansson, Louise Akesson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:Abstract Panoramic, bitewing and periapical Radiography and probing for measurement of the marginal bone level were compared. Altogether 237 sites of 23 patients were examined. Radiographs were taken with a splint containing steel balls to allow calculation of the enlargement of the radiographs. Probing was done before and during flap surgery using the same splint. The open bone measurement represented the true value. All radiographs were assessed by 5 observers. The mean enlargement of panoramic Radiography was 27% in the upper and 26% in the lower arch. For bitewing and periapical Radiography, it was 8% in the upper and 4–5% in the lower arch. All methods underestimated the bone loss. Probing bone level before surgery was most accurate, deviating at most 5% from the true value. Periapical Radiography was more accurate than panoramic and bitewing Radiography (p < 0.001). Panoramic Radiography presented a slightly lower mean accuracy than bitewing Radiography (p<0.05). The underestimation of the bone loss ranged from 13 to 32% in orthopantomograms, 11–23% in bitewing and 9–20% in periapical radiographs. The interobserver variation of the radiographic methods was substantial.
Jan Hakansson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of panoramic and intraoral Radiography and pocket probing for the measurement of the marginal bone level
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1992Co-Authors: Jan Hakansson, Louise Akesson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:Panoramic, bitewing and periapical Radiography and probing for measurement of the marginal bone level were compared. Altogether 237 sites of 23 patients were examined. Radiographs were taken with a splint containing steel balls to allow calculation of the enlargement of the radiographs. Probing was done before and during flap surgery using the same splint. The open bone measurement represented the true value. All radiographs were assessed by 5 observers. The mean enlargement of panoramic Radiography was 27% in the upper and 26% in the lower arch. For bitewing and periapical Radiography, it was 8% in the upper and 4-5% in the lower arch. All methods underestimated the bone loss. Probing bone level before surgery was most accurate, deviating at most 5% from the true value. Periapical Radiography was more accurate than panoramic and bitewing Radiography (p less than 0.001). Panoramic Radiography presented a slightly lower mean accuracy than bitewing Radiography (p less than 0.05). The underestimation of the bone loss ranged from 13 to 32% in orthopantomograms, 11-23% in bitewing and 9-20% in periapical radiographs. The interobserver variation of the radiographic methods was substantial.
-
comparison of panoramic and intraoral Radiography and pocket probing for the measurement of the marginal bone level
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1992Co-Authors: Jan Hakansson, Louise Akesson, Madeleine RohlinAbstract:Abstract Panoramic, bitewing and periapical Radiography and probing for measurement of the marginal bone level were compared. Altogether 237 sites of 23 patients were examined. Radiographs were taken with a splint containing steel balls to allow calculation of the enlargement of the radiographs. Probing was done before and during flap surgery using the same splint. The open bone measurement represented the true value. All radiographs were assessed by 5 observers. The mean enlargement of panoramic Radiography was 27% in the upper and 26% in the lower arch. For bitewing and periapical Radiography, it was 8% in the upper and 4–5% in the lower arch. All methods underestimated the bone loss. Probing bone level before surgery was most accurate, deviating at most 5% from the true value. Periapical Radiography was more accurate than panoramic and bitewing Radiography (p < 0.001). Panoramic Radiography presented a slightly lower mean accuracy than bitewing Radiography (p<0.05). The underestimation of the bone loss ranged from 13 to 32% in orthopantomograms, 11–23% in bitewing and 9–20% in periapical radiographs. The interobserver variation of the radiographic methods was substantial.
William A. Murphy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
central venous line placement in the superior vena cava and the azygos vein differentiation on posteroanterior chest radiographs
American Journal of Roentgenology, 2011Co-Authors: Tamara Miner Haygood, Patrick C Brennan, John Ryan, Josemiguel Yamal, Lindsay Liles, Paul Osullivan, Colleen M Costelloe, Nancy E Fitzgerald, William A. MurphyAbstract:OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine, first, the accuracy with which radiologists reading posteroanterior chest radiographs differentiate whether a central venous line is in the superior vena cava or the azygos vein and, second, the circumstances in which radiologists may omit the lateral view to determine the position of a central venous line.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-four radiologists evaluated 60 posteroanterior chest radiographs to determine the position of a central venous line in the superior vena cava or azygos vein. Investigators evaluated the appearance of the central venous lines to refine rules for determining central venous line position on a frontal radiograph and omitting the lateral view.RESULTS. The accuracy of posteroanterior Radiography for determining central venous line position was 90% at one study location and 85.5% at the other. No central venous line in the azygos vein extended more than 10.9 mm caudal to the cephalic edge of the right main bronchus. No central...
-
Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor Radiography with a hybrid cassette.
Radiology, 1994Co-Authors: Anthony J. Wilson, F. A. Mann, O. Clark West, Kevin W. Mcenery, William A. MurphyAbstract:PURPOSE: To compare conventional and storage phosphor Radiography of the injured cervical spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients underwent imaging in a supine position while wearing a cervical collar. Matched storage phosphor and conventional lateral cervical spine radiographs were obtained with an 18 x 24-cm hybrid cassette. Edge-enhanced and nonenhanced copies of each computed radiograph were printed on film, and the images were sent via a computer network to a remote imaging workstation. Four radiologists read the conventional radiographs, the two hard-copy computed radiographs, and the soft-copy images and used a binary scale to score the visibility of bone and soft-tissue structures. RESULTS: All readers scored better in all areas with computed radiographs, and a statistically significant (P = .030) improvement in performance was seen for soft-tissue structures. CONCLUSION: Storage phosphor imaging offers advantages over conventional Radiography, and digital images may be a viable alternat...
F. A. Mann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
lateral Radiography of the cervical spine in the trauma patient looking beyond the spine
American Journal of Roentgenology, 2001Co-Authors: Jonathan R Perry, F. A. Mann, Eric J Stern, Alexander B BaxterAbstract:381 n the traumatized patient, the crosstable lateral cervical spine radiograph is commonly obtained immediately on arrival in the emergency department, along with a chest radiograph and pelvis radiograph. These three radiographs—the trauma series— are obtained to rapidly screen for life-threatening injuries. With the cervical spine radiograph, there is a tendency to focus on the spine itself. The careful observer can find other clues to injuries that are exclusive of the spine. Although many of these injuries are better evaluated with Lateral Radiography of the Cervical Spine in the Trauma Patient: Looking Beyond the Spine
-
Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor Radiography with a hybrid cassette.
Radiology, 1994Co-Authors: Anthony J. Wilson, F. A. Mann, O. Clark West, Kevin W. Mcenery, William A. MurphyAbstract:PURPOSE: To compare conventional and storage phosphor Radiography of the injured cervical spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients underwent imaging in a supine position while wearing a cervical collar. Matched storage phosphor and conventional lateral cervical spine radiographs were obtained with an 18 x 24-cm hybrid cassette. Edge-enhanced and nonenhanced copies of each computed radiograph were printed on film, and the images were sent via a computer network to a remote imaging workstation. Four radiologists read the conventional radiographs, the two hard-copy computed radiographs, and the soft-copy images and used a binary scale to score the visibility of bone and soft-tissue structures. RESULTS: All readers scored better in all areas with computed radiographs, and a statistically significant (P = .030) improvement in performance was seen for soft-tissue structures. CONCLUSION: Storage phosphor imaging offers advantages over conventional Radiography, and digital images may be a viable alternat...
