In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: A receiver operating characteristic analysis

被引:18
作者
Grassl, Ulrich
Schulze, Ralf Kurt Willy
机构
[1] Klin Zahnarztliche Chirurg Radiol Mund & K, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
[2] Univ Basel, Sch Dent, Basel, Switzerland
[3] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, D-6500 Mainz, Germany
[4] Univ Basel, Sch Dent, Dept Oral Surg & Radiol, Basel, Switzerland
[5] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Sch Dent, Dept Oral Surg, D-6500 Mainz, Germany
来源
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY | 2007年 / 103卷 / 05期
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.04.005
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective. To compare experimentally the image quality of charged-coupled device ( CCD)-based digital, flatbed scanner digitized, and dental film radiographs. Study design. High-contrast standardized radiographs of an aluminum step wedge containing boreholes were obtained on dental radiographic film (F) and a CCD receptor (D). Digitization (S) was done with a flatbed scanner. Each radiograph was separated into 23 single images, 18 of which showed a dark spot. Thirty observers indicated their confidence on the visibility of the spots for a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results. Mean Az values (area beneath the ROC curves) differed significantly (P < .05), being highest for D (Az = 0.76), followed by F (Az = 0.71) and S (Az = 0.60). Mean sensitivity of S (0.45) was significantly (P = .000) lower than for D (0.66) and F (0.67). Conclusion. The difference between modality D and F was small. However, the inferior performance of S images, particularly in dark regions, could be clinically relevant.
引用
收藏
页码:694 / 701
页数:8
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS OF FRACTURE AND PNEUMONIA DETECTION - COMPARISON OF LASER-DIGITIZED WORKSTATION IMAGES AND CONVENTIONAL ANALOG RADIOGRAPHS [J].
ACKERMAN, SJ ;
GITLIN, JN ;
GAYLER, RW ;
FLAGLE, CD ;
BRYAN, RN .
RADIOLOGY, 1993, 186 (01) :263-268
[2]   Digitisation and display of intra-oral films [J].
Attaelmanan, A ;
Borg, E ;
Grondahl, HG .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2000, 29 (02) :97-102
[3]   CCD film digitizers in clinical practice: evaluation of the main properties [J].
Baruffaldi, F ;
Angelini, AL ;
Testi, D ;
Mattioli, P ;
Pierotti, L .
MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND THE INTERNET IN MEDICINE, 2001, 26 (02) :101-114
[4]   Conversion of teaching file cases from film to digital format: A comparison between use of a diagnostic-quality digitizer and use of a flatbed scanner with transparency adapter [J].
Bassignani, MJ ;
Bubash-Faust, L ;
Ciambotti, J ;
Moran, R ;
Mcllhenny, J .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2003, 10 (05) :536-542
[5]   A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics [J].
Bhaskaran, V ;
Qualtrough, AJE ;
Rushton, VE ;
Worthington, HV ;
Horner, K .
INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, 2005, 38 (09) :645-652
[6]   Marginal bone level buccal to mandibular molars in digital radiographs from charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems - An in vitro study [J].
Borg, E ;
Grondahl, K ;
Grondahl, HG .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 24 (05) :306-312
[7]  
BOYD NF, 1982, J NATL CANCER I, V68, P357
[8]   DIGITIZING OF RADIOGRAPHS WITH A FLAT-BED SCANNER [J].
CHEN, SK ;
HOLLENDER, L .
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 1995, 23 (04) :205-208
[9]   Comparison of radiographic image quality from four digitization devices as viewed on computer monitors [J].
Davidson, HC ;
Johnston, DJ ;
Christian, ME ;
Harnsberger, HR .
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2001, 14 (01) :24-29
[10]  
Fuge KN, 1998, INT ENDOD J, V31, P123