Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

DİREKT DİJİTAL RADYOGRAFİ (DDR) VE LİTERATÜR TARAMASI

DIRECT DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY (DDR) AND LITERATURES REVIEW

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2001

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Radiographic examination is essential for diganostie purposes in dentistry as it is in medicine For radiographic image interpretation not only X-rays but also films and processing solutions are required. Besides the advantages of conventional radiographic techniques there are also some disadvantages. Nowdays, digital imaging techniques arc developed for the elimination ol these disadvantages. In this technique the image is spontaneously on the computer monitor and requires no processing procedures. The purpose of this paper H to review Lhe direct digital imaging techniques and conventional radiographic techniques, explain their advantages and disadvantages by examing the associated literatures
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Tıpta oiduğu gibi diş hekimliğinde de telhis amacıyla radyografik değerlendirme kullanılmaktadır. Radyografik görüntü elde ediltnesindcX-ismlannmi yamsıra röntgen filmleri ve banyo solUsyonlarma da gereksinim vardır. Geleneksel radyografi tekniklerinin avantajları yanında birtakım dezavantajları bulunmaktadır. Günümüzde bu de-^avantalan ortadan kaldırmak için digital görüntüleme teknikleri geliştirilmiştir- Bu teknikte gürüntü, anında bilgisayar ekranı üzerinde oluşturulmakta ve banyo işlemelrinc gerek kalmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, direkt digital radyografi tekniğiyle geleneksel radyografi tekniklerinin avantaj ve dezavantajları ortaya koyarak konuyla ilgili literatürleri incelemektir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-direkt-dijital-radyografi-ddr-literatur-taramasi.pdf
  • 3
51-56
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Bcnz C Mouyen F: Evaluation of the new system radiovisiography image quality. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral PathoL 1991:72: 637-631.
2. Hliingscn MA, Harrington GW, Hollender EG: Radiovisiography versus conventional radiography for detection of small instruments in endodontic length determination. Part 1. In-vitro evaluation. j Endndont.l99521:326-33].
3. Ellingsen MA, Harrington GW, Hollender LG: Radiovisiography versus conventional radiography lor detection of small instruments in endodontic length determination. Part 2. In-vivo evaluation. J Endudont. 1995 ;21:5 16-520.
4. Goaz PW, White ST Oraf Radiology Principles and Interpretation third Ed Mosby, St.Loia, 1994;273,
5. Furkart AJ, Dove SB r Me David WD, Nummikoski P. Mattesan S: Direct digital radiography tor the detection of periodontal bone lesions. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1992;74:652-660.
6. Giffttlis Bm, Brown .It, Hyatt AT, Liriney AD:
Comparison of three imaging techniques for assessing-endodontic working length. Int Endodont J 1992;25: 279-2R7.
7. HcdrickRT.Dove SB, Peters DD.Mc David WD: Radiographic determination of canal length: Direct digital radioeraphv versus conventional radiography. J Endodont. 1994:20:320-332.
8. Hiltebolt CHt Vannicr MW, Shroul VIK, Piagrani I K, Province M, Vahcy EP, RieU DW: Periodontal disease morbidity quantillcation 2, Validation of alveolar bone loss measurements and vertical defect, diagnosis from digital biLewing images. J Periodonlol. 1990; 61: 523-532.
9. Hintze PL Wen/.el A. Jones C; In-vitro comparison ol" D- and F- speed film radiography, RGV and Visu&hx digital radiography for the detection of enamel approximal and dentinal occlusal caries lesions. Caries Research 1994:28: 363-367.
10. Homer K, Shearer AC, Walker A, Wilson NHF: Radiovisiography: An initial evaluation. Brit. Dent.J 1990; 168:244.
11. Jones GA, Schuman NJ, Woods MA: Estimated skin exposure as an indicator lor comparing RVG versus conventional F,kta?pccd Plus denial radiography. J Clin. Pcdiatr. Dent. I998;22(2): 121-123.
12. Kullendorl" R. Nils son M, Rohlin M: Diagnostic accuracy of direct digiLal dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions, Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Radiol. Fndodont, 19%;82: 344-350.
13. Leddy BJ, Miles DA, Ncuton CW, tîrovvıı CE:. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using radiovisiography. J Endodont. 1994;20:542-545.
14. Meier AW, Brown CF,_ Miles DA: Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using digital imaging. .1 Endodont. 1996;22; 516-520.
15. Molten R: Direct digital \- rav imaging with Visualix/Vixa. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral PathoL İ993; 76: 235-243.
16. Mouyen E, Bez C, Sonnabend E, Lodtcr JP: Presentation and physical evaluation of Radiovisiography. Oral Surg. Oral Med'. Oral Pathol. 1989, 68: 238-242.
55
Atatürk Üniv.Dis Hek.Fak.Dcrg. Ciltli, Sayı:3, Sayfa:S 1-56,2001
OUNUOK.^UUK.
17. Mouyen F, Wenzcl A.Hİııtee H, Mikkalscn L: Radiographic detection of occlusal curies in noncaviLaied teeth. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1991; 72:621-626.
IS. Nclvig P, Wing K, Welander: Scns-A-Ray: A new system lor direct digital intraoral radiography. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1992;74: 818-823,
!9, Ong EY, Ford TRP: Comparison of radiovisiography with radiographic film in root length determination. Int Endodont. Endodont. J 1995; 28:25.
20. Parks KT, Miles DA, Van Dis Ml, Williamson GF, Razmus TF. Bricker Sc: Etibcla of nitration, collimation and Larget-rcceptor distance on artificial approximal enamel lesion dcteciion with the use of radiovisiography. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pattid. 1994,77; 419-426,
21. Pass B, Furkart AJ Dove SB, Me David WD, Gregsoa PH: 6- hit and 8- bit digital radiography for detecting simulated periodontal lesions. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1994;77: 4U6-411.
22. RUSK el M, Pitts NFS: Radiographic diagnosis dental caries: initial comparison of basic mode videoprinis with bitcwing radiography. Canes Res. 1993;27: 65-70.
23. Sandcrink GCII. Huiskens R, Stelt VD. Welander US, Slheemsn SE: linage quality of direct digital intraoral s- ray sensors in assessing rooi canal length. Oral Surg. Oral Med .Oral Pathol. 1994; 78: 125-132.
24. Searface WC, Fana CR, Farman AG: Radiographic detection of accessory/lateral canals: Use of radiovisiography and hypaque, J Endodont, 1995; 2: 185-190.
25. Shearer Ac. Horner K, Wilson NHF: Radiographic detection of accessory/lateral canals; an in-vitro comparison witth conventional radiography. Quintessence Int. 1990;21: 7S9-794.
26. Shearer AC, Horner K., Wilson NHF: Radiographic for length estimation in root canal treatment; an in-vitro comparison with conventional radiography. Int Kndodont. J 1991:24: 233-239.
27. $oh G, (.oh FC, Chong YH: Radiation dosage of a dental imaging system. Quintessence Int, 1993;, 24: 189-191.
28. Tii-rel BC, Miles OA, Brown CA. Lcgan JJ.:lnlerpretatioii of chemically created lesions using direct digital imaging. J Rudodont. 1996: 22: 74-78.
29. Walker A, Horner K, Czajka J, Shearer AC, Wilson NHF:Quamitativc assesment of a new dental imaging system. Br J Radiol. 199! ;64: 529-536.
30. Welander U, Nclvig P, Tronje G, Mc David Wd, Dove SH, M'mer AC. Cedcilund T:Basic tachniea] properties of a system for direct acquisition of digital intraoral radiographs. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1993; 75:
31. Yuk-ota HI , Miles DA, Newton CW, Brown CE: lnierprctiition of periapical lesions using radiovisiography. .1 Endodont. 1994: 20: 490-494.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com