Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using direct digital imaging

Journal of Endodontics

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 1996, Pages 516-520

  Meier, Allen W ^a   Brown, Cecil E ^b   Miles, Dale A ^b   Analoui, Mostafa ^b  

^a Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; OSTEOLYSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; TOOTH PERIAPICAL DISEASE; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ALVEOLAR BONE LOSS; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERIAPICAL DISEASES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS;

EID: 0030252710     PISSN: 00992399     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80009-4     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bender IB, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone. I. J Am Dent Assoc 1961;62:152-60.
2. Bender IB, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone. II. J Am Dent Assoc 1961;62:708-16.
3. Lee SJ, Messer HH. Radiographic appearance of artificially prepared periapical lesions confined to cancellous bone. Int Endod J 1986;19:64-72.
4. Tirrell B. Interpretation of chemically created lesions using direct digital imaging [Thesis]. Indianapolis: Indiana University School of Dentistry, 1994: 3-86.
5. Razzano MR, Bonner PJ. Radiovisiography: video imaging alters traditional approach to radiography. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1990;11:398-400.
6. Miles DA. Imaging using solid-state detectors. Dent Clin North Am 1993;37:531-40.
7. Alfano B, Brunetti A, Ciarmiello A, Salvatore M. Simultaneous display of multiple MR parameters with "quantitative magnetic color imaging." J Comp Assist Tomogr 1992;16:634-40.
8. Adobe Systems, Inc. Adobe Photoshop users guide. Mountain View, CA: Adobe Systems, Inc., 1993:103.
9. Leddy BJ, Miles DA, Newton CW, Brown CE. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using RadioVisioGraphy. J Endodon 1994;20:542-5.
10. Yokota ET, Miles DA, Newton CW, Brown CE. Interpretation of periapical lesions using RadioVisioGraphy. J Endodon 1994;20:490-4.
11. Sanderink GCH, Huiskens R, van der Stell PF, Welander US, Stheeman SE. Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78:125-32.
12. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Endodontic success - who's reading the radiograph? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972;33:432-7.
13. Duinkerke ASH, Van De Poel ACM, DeBoo T, Doesburg WH. Variations in the interpretation of periapical radiolucencies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1975;40:414-21.
14. Zakariasen KL, Scott DA, Jensen JR. Endodontic recall radiographs: how reliable is our interpretation of endodontic success and failure and what factors affect our reliability? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984;57:343-7.
15. Gelfand M, Sunderman EJ, Goldman M. Reliability of radiographic interpretations. J Endodon 1983;9:71-5.
16. Welander U, McDavid WD, Higgins NM, Morris CR. The effect of viewing conditions on the perceptibility of radiographic details. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983;56:651-4.
17. Schreiber MH. The clinical history as a factor in roentgenogram interpretation. JAMA 1963;185:399-401.
18. Koran LM. Increasing the reliability of clinical data and judgments. Ann Clin Res 1976;8:69-73.
19. Pizer SM, Zimmerman JB, Staab EV. Adaptive grey level assignment in CT scan display. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1984;8:300-5.