A comparative study of the examination pattern of panoramic radiographs using eye-tracking software

Abstract

Aim: To analyze the differences between novice and expert orthodontists examining panoramic radiographs with incidental findings of varying difficulty. The null hypothesis states no difference in the examination pattern of panoramic radiographs between novice and expert orthodontists. Materials and methods: Expert and novice orthodontic observers were asked to examine six panoramic radiographs with incidental findings of varying difficulty. The eye-tracking software recorded and analyzed their eye movements during the examination. After examining each radiograph, the observers were asked questions about the radiograph. All these collected data were analyzed to compare the performance of the two sets of observers. Results: The total number of observers was 72 in the novice group and 64 in the expert group. There was only one statistically significant finding between the two groups of observers, which was the end time. Expert orthodontists recorded longer panoramic radiograph examination times. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the abilities of expert and novice orthodontists to examine panoramic radiographs and identify incidental findings. Clinical significance: Orthodontists might benefit from additional education and continued training in examining and reporting radiographs commonly utilized by this specific group of dental specialists, such as panoramic and cephalometric radiographs.