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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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: Udupa, Hema, BDS, MS, Mah, Peter, DMD, MS, Dove, Stephen B., DDS, MS, McDavid, William D., PhD
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