CARIES DIAGNOSIS IN PANORAMIC RADIOGRAPHS ACCORDING TO THE ICDAS-RSS: COMPARISON OF THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF LED AND LCD MONITORS

European Congress of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology, Iasi, Romanya, 25 - 27 Haziran 2026, ss.97, (Özet Bildiri)

Aim: To evaluate the effect of two display technologies (LCD vs LED) on the diagnostic quality

of caries depth assessment on panoramic radiographs according to ICDAS-RSS, focusing on

potential differences in grayscale/contrast rendition, detail discrimination, and lesion-depth

perceptibility.

Materials and Methods: Materials and Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 108

carious permanent teeth from archived panoramic radiographs were identified by an experienced

oral radiologist and served as the reference standard. Subsequently, the images were blindly and

independently scored by two experts using ICDAS-RSS (RA1–RC6). Images were reviewed on

an HP L1710 (LCD) and an HP P24H G5 (LED) under dim, constant ambient lighting using

standardized viewing and software settings. Agreement between observers was assessed with

weighted kappa; interdisplay score differences with Wilcoxon; and accuracy versus the reference

standard with McNemar (α=0.05).

Results: Relative to the reference standard, Observer 2 performed excellently on both displays.

LED showed higher specificity at the enamel–dentin threshold (≥3), whereas LCD showed

slightly higher accuracy for deep lesions (≥5; 93.7% vs 90.5%). For Observer 2, LED-LCD score

differences were not significant (p=0.083) and no bias was detected (LED p=1.000; LCD

p=0.724). Exact-score agreement was similar (McNemar p=0.720), while Observer 1 differed

across displays (p=0.012).

Conclusion: Both displays demonstrated excellent agreement and diagnostic performance. LED

may reduce false positives (higher specificity), while LCD may offer a small advantage for very

deep lesions. Under standardized conditions, both display types appear clinically acceptable.