Comparison of linear measurements made from storage phosphor and dental radiographs

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 268-273

  Conover, G L ^a   Hildebolt, C F ^b   Yokoyama Crothers, N ^b  

^a School of Dental Medicine   (India)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biometry; Radiographic image enhancement; Radiography, dental; Signal processing, computer assisted

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; LUMINESCENCE; MANDIBLE; MATHEMATICS; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGNAL PROCESSING; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIOMETRY; HUMANS; LUMINESCENT MEASUREMENTS; MANDIBLE; MATHEMATICS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 0030275998     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.25.5.9161181     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H. Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiology 1983; 148: 833-8.
2. Blume H, lost RG. Chest imaging within the radiology department by means of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography. A review. J Dig Imaging 1992; 5: 67-78.
3. Hillman BJ, Fajardo LL. Clinical assessment of phosphorplate computed radiography: equipment, strategy, and methods. J Dig Imaging 1989; 2: 220-7.
4. Higashida Y, Moribe N, Hirata Y et al. Computed radiography utilizing laser-stimulated luminescence: detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic objects. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1988; 12: 137-45.
5. Murphey MD, Huang HKB, Siegel EL, Hillman BJ, Bramble JM. Clinical experience in the use of photostimulable phosphor radiographic systems. Invest Radial 1991; 26: 590-7.
6. Ravin CE, Chotas HG. Digital radiography. In: Potchen CJ, Grainger RG, Greene R, eds. Pulmonary radiology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1993; pp 379-85.
7. Glazer HS, Muka E, Sagal SS, Jost RG. New techniques in chest radiography. Rad Clin N Am 1994; 4: 711-29.
8. Murphey MD. Digital skeletal radiography. Spatial resolution requirements for detection of subperiosteal resorption. Am J Radial 1989; 152: 541-6.
9. Wergryn SA, Piraino DW, Richmond BJ et al. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography. An observer performance study. Radiology 1990; 175: 225-8.
10. Oestmann J-W, Greene RE, Prokop M. Digital imaging processing. In: Greene RE, Oestmann J-W, eds. Computed digital radiography in clinical practice New York: Thieme, 1992; 27-40.
11. Geisser S, Greenhouse SW. An extension of Box's results on the use of the F distribution in multivariate analysis. Ann Math Statist 1958; 29: 885-7.
12. Huynh H, Feldt LS. Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in the randomized block and split-plot design. J Educ Statist 1976; 1: 69-72.
13. Kohn LAP, Cheverud JM, Bhatia G, Commcan P, Smith K, Vannier MW. Anthropometric optical surface imaging system repeatability, precision, and validation. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 34: 362-71.
14. Greene RE, Oestmann J-W: The rationale for transition to digital radiography. In: Computed Digital Radiography in Clinical Practice New York: Thieme, 1992; 2-7.
15. Bramble JM, Murphey MD. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography. Observer performance study. Radiology 1990; 177: 587-9.
16. Buckwalter KA, Braunstein EM. Digital skeletal radiography. Am J Radiol 1992; 158: 1071-80.
17. Portnoy LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research, Norwalk, Connecticut: Appleton and Lange, 1993; p 386.