When radiography is applied in the clinic for caries detection, the recommended technique is bitewing projection (Gröndahl, 1994). This technique was introduced by Raper (1925) and has continued with only minor alterations. The aims of this report are to provide evidence for (1) optimal bitewing recording for individual examinations and clinical trials, (2) advantages and disadvantages of digital receptors for bitewing examinations, (3) the diagnostic outcomes and limitations of bitewing radiography, and (4) computerautomated detection of caries.
BahramiG, HagstrømC, WenzelA (2003). Bitewing examination with four digital receptors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol32: 317–321.
2.
FirestoneAR, SemaD, HeavenTJ, WeemsRA (1998). The effect of a knowledge-based, image analysis and clinical decision support system on observer performance in the diagnosis of approximal caries from radiographic images. Caries Res32: 127–134.
3.
GröndahlH-G (1994). The value of the radiologic examination in caries diagnosis. In: Textbook of clinical cariology.ThylstrupA, FejerskovO, editors. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, pp. 376–382.
4.
HalseA, EspelidI, TveitAB, WhiteSC (1994). Detection of mineral loss in approximal enamel by subtraction radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol77: 177–182.
5.
HeavenTJ, FirestoneAR, FeaginFF (1992). Computer-based image analysis of natural approximal caries on radiographic films. J Dent Res71: 846–849.
6.
HintzeH (1993). Screening with conventional and digital bite-wing radiography compared to clinical examination alone for caries detection in low-risk children. Caries Res23: 499–504.
7.
HintzeH, WenzelA (1994). Clinically undetected dental caries assessed by bitewing screening in children with little caries experience. Dentomaxillofac Radiol23: 19–23.
8.
HintzeH, WenzelA (1996). Clinical and laboratory radiographic caries diagnosis. A study of the same teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol25: 115–118.
9.
HintzeH, WenzelA (1999). A two-film versus a four-film bite-wing examination for caries diagnosis in adults. Caries Res33: 380–386.
10.
HintzeH, WenzelA (2002). Influence of the validation method on diagnostic accuracy for caries. A comparison of six digital and two conventional radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol31: 44–49.
11.
HintzeH, WenzelA, JonesC (1994). In vitro comparison of D- and E-speed film radiography, RVG, and Visualix digital radiography for the detection of enamel approximal and dentinal occlusal caries lesions. Caries Res28: 363–367.
12.
HintzeH, WenzelA, DanielsenB, NyvadB (1998). Reliability of visual examination, fibre-optic transillumination, and bitewing radiography, and reproducibility of direct visual examination following tooth separation for the identification of cavitated carious lesions in contacting approximal surfaces. Caries Res32: 204–209.
13.
HintzeH, WenzelA, DanielsenB (1999). Behaviour of approximal carious lesions assessed by clinical examination after tooth separation and radiography: a 2.5-year longitudinal study in young adults. Caries Res33: 415–422.
14.
HintzeH, WenzelA, FrydenbergM (2002). Accuracy of caries detection with four storage phosphor systems and E-speed film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol31: 170–175.
15.
JensenØE, HandelmanSL, IkerHP (1987). Use and quality of bitewing films in private dental offices. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol63: 249–253.
16.
KaffeI, GordonM, LauferB, LittnerMM (1984). Detection of proximal carious lesions: two-film versus four-film bitewing radiography. Oral Surg57: 567–571.
17.
KiddEAM, PittsNB (1990). A re-appraisal of the value of the bitewing radiograph in the diagnosis of posterior approximal caries. Br Dent J169: 195–200.
18.
MaurielloSM, OvermanVP, PlatinER (1995). Radiographic imaging for the dental team.Philadelphia: Lippincott, pp. 131–132, 161-169.
19.
NielsenL-L, HoernoeM, WenzelA (1996). Radiographic detection of cavitation in approximal surfaces of primary teeth using a digital storage phosphor system and conventional film, and the relationship between cavitation and radiographic lesion depth: an in vitro study. Int J Paediat Dent6: 167–172.
20.
PearceEIF, CooteGE, LarsenMJ (1995). The distribution of fluoride in carious human enamel. J Dent Res74: 1775–1782.
21.
PittsNB (1984a). Film-holding, beam-aiming and collimating devices as an aid to standardization in intra-oral radiography: a review. J Dent12: 36–46.
22.
PittsNB (1984b). Detection and measurement of approximal radiolucencies by computer-aided image analysis of bitewing radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol58: 358–366.
23.
PittsNB (1986). Approximal radiolucencies in partially overlapped enamel: the need for quantitation and a preliminary assessment of a computer-aided image analysis method. Quintessence Int17: 229–236.
24.
PittsNB (1996). The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol25: 5–16.
25.
PittsNB, KiddEAM (1992). Some of the factors to be considered in the prescription and timing of bitewing radiography in the diagnosis and management of dental caries. J Dent20: 74–84.
26.
PittsNB, LongbottomC (1987). Temporary tooth separation with special references to the diagnosis and preventive management of equivocal approximal carious lesions. Quintessence Int18: 563–573.
27.
PittsNB, RimmerPA (1992). An in vivo comparison of radiographic and directly assessed clinical caries status of posterior approximal surfaces in primary and permanent teeth. Caries Res26: 146–152.
28.
RaperHR (1925). Practical clinical preventive dentistry based upon periodic Roentgen-ray examinations. J Am Dent Assoc Sept: 1084–1100.
29.
RatledgeDK, KiddEAM, BeightonD (2001). A clinical and microbiological study of approximal carious lesions. Part 1: The relationship between cavitation, radiographic lesion depth, the site specific gingival index and the level of infection of the dentine. Caries Res35: 3–7.
30.
RickettsD, KiddE, WeerheijmK, de SoetH (1997). Hidden caries: what is it? Does it exist? Does it matter?Int Dent J47:259–265.
31.
RossmannK (1969). Image quality. Radiol Clin North Am 7:419-433. Verdonschot EH, Angmar-Månsson B, ten Bosch JJ, Deery CH, Huysmans MCDNJM, Pitts NB, et al. (1999). Developments in caries diagnosis and their relationship to treatment decisions and quality care. Caries Res33: 32–40.
32.
VersteegCH, SanderinkGCH, van GinkelFC, van der SteltPF (1998). An evaluation of periapical radiography with a charge-coupled device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol27: 97–101.
33.
WebberRL, HortonDA, TyndallDA, LudlowJB (1997). Tuned-aperture computed tomography (TACT™). Theory and application for three-dimensional dento-alveolar imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol26: 53–62.
34.
WenzelA (1991). Influence of computerized information technologies on image quality in dental radiographs. Danish Dent J95: 527–559.
35.
WenzelA (1995). Current trends in radiographic caries imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod80: 527–539.
36.
WenzelA (1998). Digital radiography and caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol27: 3–11.
37.
WenzelA (1999). Matters to consider when implementing direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int J Comput Dent4: 269–290.
38.
WenzelA (2000). Digital imaging for dental caries. Dent Clinic North Am44: 319–338.
39.
WenzelA (2001). Computer-automated caries detection in digital bitewings: consistency of a program and its influence on observer agreement. Caries Res35: 12–20.
40.
WenzelA, AndersenL (1994). A quantitative analysis of subtraction images based on bite-wing radiographs for simulated victim identification in forensic dentistry. J Forensic Odonto-Stomatol12: 1–5.
41.
WenzelA, FejerskovO (1992). Validity of diagnosis of questionable caries lesions in occlusal surfaces of extracted third molars. Caries Res26: 188–194.
42.
WenzelA, GotfredsenE (2000). An interview study with Danish dentists who work with direct digital radiography (in Danish with an English summary). Tandlaegebladet3: 130–136.
43.
WenzelA, GröndahlH-G (1995). Direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int Dent J45: 27–34.
44.
WenzelA, HalseA (1992). Digital subtraction radiography after stannous fluoride treatment for occlusal caries diagnosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol74: 824–828.
45.
WenzelA, MøystadA (2001a). Decision criteria and characteristics of Norwegian general dental practitioners selecting digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol30: 197–202.
46.
WenzelA, MøystadA (2001b). Experience of Norwegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol30: 203–208.
WenzelA, FrandsenEG, HintzeH (1999). Patient discomfort and cross-infection control in bitewing examination with a storage phosphor plate and a CCD-based sensor. J Dent27: 243–246.
49.
WenzelA, AnthonisenPN, JuulMB (2000). Reproducibility in the assessment of caries lesion behaviour: a comparison between conventional film and subtraction radiography. Caries Res34: 214–218.
50.
WenzelA, HintzeH, KoldLM, KoldS (2002). Accuracy of computer-automated caries detection in digital radiographs compared with human observers. Eur J Oral Sci110: 1–5.
51.
WhiteSC, PharoahMJ, editors (2000). Oral radiology—principles and interpretation. 4th rev. ed. St. Louis: Mosby, pp. 122–157.
52.
WhiteSC, YoonDC (1997). Comparative performance of digital and conventional images for detecting proximal surface caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol26: 32–38.
