首都医科大学学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (1): 163-167.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2026.01.021

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于目标牙的根尖片图像质控方法研究

韩建辉,金玲,杨盼,沙晓雁,祁森荣*   

  1. 首都医科大学附属北京口腔医院口腔影像科,北京 100070
  • 收稿日期:2025-09-30 修回日期:2025-11-10 出版日期:2026-02-21 发布日期:2026-02-02
  • 通讯作者: 祁森荣 E-mail:qisenrong@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    首都医科大学附属北京口腔医院创新基金项目(23-09-29)。This study was supported by Beijing Stomatological Hospital Capital Medical University Innovation Fund(23-09-29).

Research on image quality control methods for periapical radiographs of target teeth

Han Jianhui,  Jin Ling,  Yang Pan,  Sha Xiaoyan,  Qi Senrong*   

  1. Department of Oral Radiology, Beijing Stomatological Hospital, Capital Medical University,Beijing 100070, China
  • Received:2025-09-30 Revised:2025-11-10 Online:2026-02-21 Published:2026-02-02

摘要: 目的  建立一种基于目标牙的根尖片图像质量评价方法,并评估其临床应用效果。方法  采集2023年首都医科大学附属北京口腔医院1 000张根尖片,从目标牙位置、图像清晰度、投照水平角度、投照垂直角度、伪影、切空6个维度由2名口腔影像医师独立进行评价,并进行分级。采用简单一致性及Gwets检验方法评价2名医师的组间一致性,并使用McNemar 检验、Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较同一名医师是否基于目标牙的评价差异。结果  6个维度中,无论是否标记目标牙,2位评价者的简单一致性与Gwet's检验的一阶一致性系数(agreement coefficient 1, AC1)值均大于0.9,一致性极高;分级的简单一致性均大于0.8,Gwet's检验的AC2值均大于0.65,整体一致性较佳。医师在是否基于目标牙的评价比较时,在目标位置、伪影2个维度及分级评价中差异明显(P<0.05),基于目标牙评价时,根尖片符合评价标准的张数更多,图像质量分级更优。结论  本标准具有良好的一致性,基于目标牙的根尖片图像特异性评价相比整体可进一步提升根尖片图像评级。

关键词: 根尖片, 图像质量, 评价标准, 目标牙, 一致性, 质量控制

Abstract: Objective  To establish an evaluation method for the image quality of periapical radiographs based on target teeth and assess its clinical application effect. Methods  A total of 1 000 periapical radiographs were collected from Beijing Stomatological Hospital, Capital Medical University in 2023. Two oral radiologists independently evaluated and graded from six dimensions: target tooth location, image clarity, horizontal projection angle, vertical projection angle, artifacts, and cut-off. The simple agreement and Gwet's test were used to assess the inter-observer consistency between the two radiologists. Meanwhile, McNemar's test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were applied to compare the evaluation differences of the same radiologist with and without reference to the target tooth. Results  Across all six dimensions, regardless of whether the target tooth was marked or not, both the simple agreement between the two evaluators and the AC1(agreement coefficient 1)values from Gwet's test were greater than 0.9, indicating extremely high consistency. For the grading results, the simple agreement was all above 0.8, and the AC2 values from Gwet's test exceeded 0.65, showing good overall consistency. When comparing the evaluations of each radiologist with and without target tooth reference, significant differences were observed in the two dimensions of target tooth location and artifacts, as well as in the grading evaluation (P<0.05). When evaluating with reference to the target tooth, more periapical radiographs met the evaluation criteria, and the image quality grading was better. Conclusion  This standard demonstrates good consistency. Compared with the overall evaluation, the target tooth-based specific evaluation of periapical radiographs can further improve the image grading of periapical radiographs.

Key words: periapical radiograph,  , image quality, evaluation criteria, target tooth,  , consistency,  quality control

中图分类号: