Smartphone use as an aid in evaluating conventional radiographs.

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of smartphones for digitizing, sharing, and viewing conventional radiographic images. Eighty conventional radiographs of 40 teeth with metallic mesio-occlusodistal restorations (40 radiographs showing perfectly adapted restorations and 40 showing restorations with a 0.4-mm proximal gap) were digitized using a smartphone and then evaluated using 2 viewing methods: a light box (LB) and a smartphone screen (SS). Three examiners assessed all radiographs for the presence of marginal gaps using a dichotomous yes/no scale. To analyze examiner reproducibility, 10% of the samples was reassessed. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were calculated for each examiner and viewing method. The McNemar test was used to compare examiners' diagnoses based on the 2 viewing methods. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The level of agreement was κ > 0.8 for all examiners and both viewing methods. The LB group presented greater sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy than the SS group, but no statistically significant differences were found between the methods (P > 0.05). The results achieved were promising, suggesting that the smartphone can be presented as a new aid for radiographic evaluation (LB accuracy, 0.899 to 0.911; SS accuracy, 0.823 to 0.873). Smartphones offer similar accuracy to the traditional viewing method for evaluation of metallic restorations on conventional radiographs.

The use of smartphones in radiographic diagnosis: accuracy on the detection of marginal gaps.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of computer monitor and smartphone screen for radiographic diagnosis of marginal gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty teeth with mesial-occlusal-distal inlays (each tooth with a perfect fit and a 0.4-mm marginal gap restoration) were imaged with a phosphor plate system. Original digital radiographs were exported and analyzed with two different methods: computer monitor and smartphone screen; for the last method, images were shared with WhatsApp. Three examiners assessed all radiographs (n = 160) for the presence of marginal gap by using a dichotomous scale (yes/no). Diagnostic performance of each examiner and viewing method was evaluated by means of sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and overall accuracy (Ac). Difference between the frequencies of gap detection of each method was analyzed using the McNemar test. Intra- and inter-examiner agreements were calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Intra- and inter-examiner agreements were ≥ 0.80 for both methods. Similar diagnostic performance was found for computer monitor (Se = 0.87-1; Sp = 0.8-0.97; Ac = 0.84-0.99) and smartphone (Se = 0.77-1; Sp = 0.87-1; Ac = 0.88-0.95) viewing methods. No statistically significant differences in the frequency of gap detection were observed between the methods (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone screens was similar to that of computer monitor for marginal gap detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Smartphones are becoming a common daily tool. In this sense, it might be an important new aid in Dentistry, including radiographic evaluation, which could benefit patients and dentists.