Sensitivity of various radiographic methods for detection of oral cancellous bone lesions

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics

Volumn 86, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 498-502

  Parsell, Douglas E ^a,b   Gatewood, R Scott ^a   Watts, J Dustin ^a   Streckfus, Charles F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE SUBTRACTION; JAW; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; OSTEOLYSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

ALVEOLAR BONE LOSS; ALVEOLAR PROCESS; HUMANS; MANDIBLE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 0032184842     PISSN: 10792104     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90381-X     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Schwartz SF, Foster JK Jr. Roentgenographic interpretation of experimentally produced bony lesions, 1. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32:606-12.
2. Bender IB, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone, I. J Amer Dent Assoc 1961;62:152-60.
3. Bender IB, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone, II. J Amer Dent Assoc 1961;62:708-16.
4. Forsberg J. A comparison of the paralleling and bisecting angle radiographic technique in endodontics. Int Endod J 1987;20:177-82.
5. White SC, Yoon DC. Comparative performance of digital and conventional images for detecting proximal surface caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26:32-8.
6. Price C, Ergül N. A comparison of a film-based and a direct digital dental radiographic system using a proximal caries model. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997;26:45-52.
7. Jeffcoat MK, Reddy MS, Magnusson I, Johnson B, Meredith MP, Cavanaugh PF, et. al. Efficacy of quantitative digital subtraction radiography using radiographs exposed in a multicenter trial. J Periodont Res 1996;31:157-60.
8. Möystad A, Svanaes DB, Larheim TA. Personal computer equipment for dental digital subtraction radiography vs industrial computer equipment and conventional radiography. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100:117-22.
9. Hausmann E, Christersson L, Dunford R, Wikesjo U, Phyo J, Genco RJ. Usefulness of subtraction radiography in the evaluation of periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 1985;56:4-7.
10. Ortman LF, Dunford R, McHenry K, Hausmann E. Subtraction radiography and computer assisted densitometric analyses of standardized radiographs. J Periodont Res 1985;20:644-51.
11. Duckworth JE, Judy PF, Goodson JM, Socransky SS. A method for the geometric and densitometric standardization of intraoral radiographs. J Periodontol 1983;54:435-40.
12. Rosling BG, Hollender L, Nyman S, Olsson G. A radiographic method for assessing changes in alveolar bone height following periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1975;2:211-7.
13. Okano T, Mera T, Ohki M, Ishikawa I, Yamada N. Digital subtraction of radiograph in evaluating alveolar bone changes after initial periodontal therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;69:258-62.
14. Yokota ET, Miles DA, Newton CW, Brown CE Jr. Interpretation of periapical lesions using RadioVisioGraphy. J Endon 1994;20:490-4.
15. Katsarsky JW, Levine MS, Allen KM, Hausmann E. Detection of experimentally induced lesions in subtraction images of cancellous alveolar bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;77:674-7.