Loading…
Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems
Objective The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. Study Design Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured...
Saved in:
Published in: | Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 2013-12, Vol.116 (6), p.774-783 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653 |
container_end_page | 783 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 774 |
container_title | Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology |
container_volume | 116 |
creator | Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS Mah, Peter, DMD, MS Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS McDavid, William D., PhD |
description | Objective The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. Study Design Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured and stored. Incident exposures were measured using a radiation meter. Gray scale, spatial resolution, and contrast/detail detectability were evaluated. Presence of 7 distinct steps spanning the gray levels from 0 to 255 was used to define the exposure latitude. An “optimal” exposure, the lowest exposure where maximum spatial resolution and contrast/detail detectability were achieved, was determined. Results The systems varied greatly in latitude, “optimal” exposure, and image quality. This may not be readily apparent to the naked eye or when clinical images are compared. Conclusions Objective assessment of image quality with a quality assurance tool makes it possible to evaluate and compare the various intraoral digital systems. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.019 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1459558627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2212440313004598</els_id><sourcerecordid>1459558627</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU2L1EAQbURxl3X_gAfJ0ctk-zOTgAiyrK6w4EE9N5XumrHHJJ3t7gzMv7fCrHvwYF2qoN571HvF2FvBa8FFc3OoI1UtuVA1b2suuhfsUkohN1oL8fJ55uqCXed84FQNEbV8zS6klmq7ld0ls3dHGBYoIU5V3FVhhD1WjwsMoZyqGRKMWDDldZdwTphxKoQ-YhWmkiAmGCof9qFQT-BD3CeYfwVX5VMuOOY37NUOhozXT_2K_fx89-P2fvPw7cvX208PG0fXlk2nsQENvVDQei8N3d7upNS0bQx453u37b3B3nglOuQNCI5Gda73mkwZdcXen3XnFB8XzMWOITscBpgwLtkKbTpj2kZuCSrPUJdizgl3dk7kO52s4HbN1h7smq1ds7W8tZQtkd496S_9iP6Z8jdJAnw4A5BcHgMmm13AyaEPCV2xPob_63_8h-6GMAUHw288YT7EJU2UnxU2S8vt9_W763OF4pysteoPc4KhTA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1459558627</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS ; Mah, Peter, DMD, MS ; Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS ; McDavid, William D., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS ; Mah, Peter, DMD, MS ; Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS ; McDavid, William D., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Objective The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. Study Design Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured and stored. Incident exposures were measured using a radiation meter. Gray scale, spatial resolution, and contrast/detail detectability were evaluated. Presence of 7 distinct steps spanning the gray levels from 0 to 255 was used to define the exposure latitude. An “optimal” exposure, the lowest exposure where maximum spatial resolution and contrast/detail detectability were achieved, was determined. Results The systems varied greatly in latitude, “optimal” exposure, and image quality. This may not be readily apparent to the naked eye or when clinical images are compared. Conclusions Objective assessment of image quality with a quality assurance tool makes it possible to evaluate and compare the various intraoral digital systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2212-4403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2212-4411</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24237729</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Dentistry ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Quality Assurance, Health Care ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ; Radiography, Dental, Digital - instrumentation ; Radiography, Dental, Digital - standards ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 2013-12, Vol.116 (6), p.774-783</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24237729$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mah, Peter, DMD, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDavid, William D., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems</title><title>Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology</title><addtitle>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. Study Design Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured and stored. Incident exposures were measured using a radiation meter. Gray scale, spatial resolution, and contrast/detail detectability were evaluated. Presence of 7 distinct steps spanning the gray levels from 0 to 255 was used to define the exposure latitude. An “optimal” exposure, the lowest exposure where maximum spatial resolution and contrast/detail detectability were achieved, was determined. Results The systems varied greatly in latitude, “optimal” exposure, and image quality. This may not be readily apparent to the naked eye or when clinical images are compared. Conclusions Objective assessment of image quality with a quality assurance tool makes it possible to evaluate and compare the various intraoral digital systems.</description><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiography, Dental, Digital - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiography, Dental, Digital - standards</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>2212-4403</issn><issn>2212-4411</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UU2L1EAQbURxl3X_gAfJ0ctk-zOTgAiyrK6w4EE9N5XumrHHJJ3t7gzMv7fCrHvwYF2qoN571HvF2FvBa8FFc3OoI1UtuVA1b2suuhfsUkohN1oL8fJ55uqCXed84FQNEbV8zS6klmq7ld0ls3dHGBYoIU5V3FVhhD1WjwsMoZyqGRKMWDDldZdwTphxKoQ-YhWmkiAmGCof9qFQT-BD3CeYfwVX5VMuOOY37NUOhozXT_2K_fx89-P2fvPw7cvX208PG0fXlk2nsQENvVDQei8N3d7upNS0bQx453u37b3B3nglOuQNCI5Gda73mkwZdcXen3XnFB8XzMWOITscBpgwLtkKbTpj2kZuCSrPUJdizgl3dk7kO52s4HbN1h7smq1ds7W8tZQtkd496S_9iP6Z8jdJAnw4A5BcHgMmm13AyaEPCV2xPob_63_8h-6GMAUHw288YT7EJU2UnxU2S8vt9_W763OF4pysteoPc4KhTA</recordid><startdate>20131201</startdate><enddate>20131201</enddate><creator>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS</creator><creator>Mah, Peter, DMD, MS</creator><creator>Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS</creator><creator>McDavid, William D., PhD</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131201</creationdate><title>Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems</title><author>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS ; Mah, Peter, DMD, MS ; Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS ; McDavid, William D., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiography, Dental, Digital - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiography, Dental, Digital - standards</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mah, Peter, DMD, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDavid, William D., PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS</au><au>Mah, Peter, DMD, MS</au><au>Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS</au><au>McDavid, William D., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems</atitle><jtitle>Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol</addtitle><date>2013-12-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>116</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>774</spage><epage>783</epage><pages>774-783</pages><issn>2212-4403</issn><eissn>2212-4411</eissn><abstract>Objective The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. Study Design Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured and stored. Incident exposures were measured using a radiation meter. Gray scale, spatial resolution, and contrast/detail detectability were evaluated. Presence of 7 distinct steps spanning the gray levels from 0 to 255 was used to define the exposure latitude. An “optimal” exposure, the lowest exposure where maximum spatial resolution and contrast/detail detectability were achieved, was determined. Results The systems varied greatly in latitude, “optimal” exposure, and image quality. This may not be readily apparent to the naked eye or when clinical images are compared. Conclusions Objective assessment of image quality with a quality assurance tool makes it possible to evaluate and compare the various intraoral digital systems.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>24237729</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.019</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2212-4403 |
ispartof | Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology, 2013-12, Vol.116 (6), p.774-783 |
issn | 2212-4403 2212-4411 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1459558627 |
source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection |
subjects | Dentistry Equipment Design Humans Phantoms, Imaging Quality Assurance, Health Care Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted Radiography, Dental, Digital - instrumentation Radiography, Dental, Digital - standards Surgery |
title | Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T22%3A29%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20image%20quality%20parameters%20of%20representative%20intraoral%20digital%20radiographic%20systems&rft.jtitle=Oral%20surgery,%20oral%20medicine,%20oral%20pathology%20and%20oral%20radiology&rft.au=Udupa,%20Hema,%20BDS,%20MS&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.volume=116&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=774&rft.epage=783&rft.pages=774-783&rft.issn=2212-4403&rft.eissn=2212-4411&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1459558627%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-94e6a4ab13a8dd252128f224c4165adcdbc7bd5eb5d319e06a10e539cbd401653%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1459558627&rft_id=info:pmid/24237729&rfr_iscdi=true |