Health Science Journal

  • ISSN: 1791-809X
  • Journal h-index: 61
  • Journal CiteScore: 17.30
  • Journal Impact Factor: 18.23
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • CINAHL Complete
  • Scimago
  • Electronic Journals Library
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • EMCare
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
Share This Page


Development of Brief Image Quality Evaluation Criteria for Digital OrthoPantomography (OPG) Images in Dental Radiography for Sri Lanka

AMC Kumarihami, SDL Heshani, Sathyathas Puvanasunthararajah and Rasika Illeperuma

Background: An Orthopantmography is (OPG) an extraoral radiographic imaging method which provides a panoramic or wide view of both jaws and teeth on a single image. Digital orthopantomography images provide high contrast with more details of the dentitions. Objective: The research main objective was to produce sophisticated and effective criteria that can be used by any radiographer with sound knowledge to identify common errors of digital OPG images and to increase the concern of high frequency of errors to minimize them to give an optimum image quality. Materials and methods: The study was designed as retrospective cross sectional study. Hundred digital OPG images are evaluated by three qualified radiographers who had dental radiography experience and four student radiographers. Paired t-test was used to see the difference between the responses of radiographers and student radiographers Kruskal-Wallis Test was used to see difference between each evaluator. Possible errors of OPG were divided into four main categories (Identification, Artifact, Anatomical coverage and patient positioning). Each main category consist sub categories. Values of subcategories were given according to their importance to get the total of 100% for each main category. Results and conclusion: The results showed that there is a no significant difference (p>0.05) between radiographers and student radiographers’ responses and also between each evaluator. Hence it shows that the criteria were an easy understandable and user friendly tool, furthermore the frequent error category was loss of anatomical coverage and frequent error was absence of positioning the tongue against the palate.