IADR Abstract Archives
Periapical Radiograph Perception Between Levels of Expertise: An Eye-tracking Study
Objectives: Eye-tracking studies in medicine and dentistry have suggested differences between observers of varying levels of expertise when evaluating radiographic images, where more experienced interpreters located abnormalities more quickly and efficiently. Periapical radiographs are currently the most widely used imaging modality for evaluating endodontic pathology. Radiographic eye-tracking studies have been performed in dentistry on panoramic radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images. However, no studies on dental periapical images have been published.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between experience and dentists’ scanning patterns when interpreting digital periapical radiographic images, and also whether experience level affected the ability to adequately scan a periapical image.
Methods: Forty-two observers scanned four periapical radiographic images while having their gaze traced by an eye-tracking device and being recorded by Camtasia software. Subjects were asked to scan the images “as if there was a patient in their chair.” The numbers of pathologic, periapical, coronal and mid-root areas that were fixated upon for each subject was recorded. Four scan patterns were recognized and recorded for each subject. The scans were evaluated by two blinded researchers. The differences in the numbers of pathologic, periapical, coronal and mid-root areas and scan pattern techniques used were statistically analyzed by one way ANOVA between four groups of experience type (dental students, AEGD residents, general dentists, endodontists) and four groups of years of experience.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the numbers of pathologic, periapical, coronal or mid-root areas observed between subjects of varying expertise. There was also no difference in the type of scanning pattern utilized between different experience levels and types. Two scanning patterns, categorized as “tooth-by-tooth” and “circular” were used predominantly, and were distributed evenly among all four experience level and all four experience types.
Conclusions: Scanning patterns did not differ significantly between more or less experienced observers. Experience level or type did not affect the number of radiographic areas that were scanned.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between experience and dentists’ scanning patterns when interpreting digital periapical radiographic images, and also whether experience level affected the ability to adequately scan a periapical image.
Methods: Forty-two observers scanned four periapical radiographic images while having their gaze traced by an eye-tracking device and being recorded by Camtasia software. Subjects were asked to scan the images “as if there was a patient in their chair.” The numbers of pathologic, periapical, coronal and mid-root areas that were fixated upon for each subject was recorded. Four scan patterns were recognized and recorded for each subject. The scans were evaluated by two blinded researchers. The differences in the numbers of pathologic, periapical, coronal and mid-root areas and scan pattern techniques used were statistically analyzed by one way ANOVA between four groups of experience type (dental students, AEGD residents, general dentists, endodontists) and four groups of years of experience.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the numbers of pathologic, periapical, coronal or mid-root areas observed between subjects of varying expertise. There was also no difference in the type of scanning pattern utilized between different experience levels and types. Two scanning patterns, categorized as “tooth-by-tooth” and “circular” were used predominantly, and were distributed evenly among all four experience level and all four experience types.
Conclusions: Scanning patterns did not differ significantly between more or less experienced observers. Experience level or type did not affect the number of radiographic areas that were scanned.