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
[21]   Conventional radiographs vs digitized radiographs:: image quality assessment [J].
Parissis, N ;
Kondylidou-Sidira, A ;
Tsirlis, A ;
Patias, P .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2005, 34 (06) :353-356
[22]  
PASLER FA, 2000, FARABATLANTEN ZAHNME, P129
[23]   In vitro carious lesion detection on D-, E-, and F-speed radiographic films [J].
Schulze, RKW ;
Nackat, D ;
d'Hoedt, B .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 2004, 97 (04) :529-534
[24]   Contrast perception in digitized panoramic radiographs compared with their film-based origin [J].
Schulze, RKW ;
Rosing, STR ;
d'Hoedt, B .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY, 2002, 94 (03) :388-394
[25]  
SPITZER W, 2000, ALLEGEMEINE CHIRURG, P223
[26]   Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems [J].
Syriopoulos, K ;
Sanderink, GCH ;
Velders, XL ;
van der Stelt, PF .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2000, 29 (05) :312-318
[27]   Impact of scale standardization on images of digital radiography systems [J].
Versteeg, CH ;
Sanderink, GCH ;
Geraets, WGM ;
vanderStelt, PF .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 1997, 26 (06) :337-343
[28]   Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey [J].
Watts, DC ;
McCabe, JF .
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 1999, 27 (01) :73-78
[29]   RADIOGRAPHIC DETECTION OF OCCLUSAL CARIES IN NONCAVITATED TEETH - A COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL FILM RADIOGRAPHS, DIGITIZED FILM RADIOGRAPHS, AND RADIOVISIOGRAPHY [J].
WENZEL, A ;
HINTZE, H ;
MIKKELSEN, L ;
MOUYEN, F .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 1991, 72 (05) :621-626
[30]   A comparison of Kodak Ultraspeed and Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray films for the detection of dental caries [J].
Wong, A ;
Monsour, PA ;
Moule, AJ ;
Basford, KE .
AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, 2002, 47 (01) :27-29