Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 70-75

  Borg, E ^a   Attaelmanan, A ^a   Grondahl H G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Digital radiography, dental; Radiographic image enhancement; Radiography, dental

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INCISOR; INSTRUMENTATION; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; MICROCOMPUTER; MOLAR TOOTH; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREMOLAR TOOTH; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ALGORITHMS; BICUSPID; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INCISOR; MANDIBLE; MICROCOMPUTERS; MOLAR; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL;

EID: 0034156669     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600501     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Horner K, Shearer AC, Walker A, Wilson NHF. Radiovisiography: An initial evaluation. Br Dent J 1990; 168: 244-248.
2. Nelvig P, Wing K, Welander U. Sens-A-Ray. A new system for direct digital intraoral radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992; 74: 818-823.
3. Molteni R. Visualix, a new system for direct dental x-ray imaging: a preliminary report. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1992; 21: 222-223.
4. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Kelly MS. FlashDent: an alternative charge-coupled device/scintillator-based direct digital intraoral radiographic system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 11-17.
5. Farman AG, Scarfe WC, Schick DB, Rumack PM. Computed dental radiography: Evaluation of a new charge-coupled device-based radiographic system. Quintessence Int 1995; 26: 399-404.
6. Gröndahl H-G, Wenzel A, Borg E, Tammisalo E. An image plate system for digital intra-oral radiography. Dental Update 1996; October: 334-337.
7. Hildebolt CF, Fletcher G, Yokoyama-Crothers N, Conover GL, Vannier MW. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26: 147-151.
8. Fossum ER. Active pixel sensors: Are CCD's dinosaurs? SPIE 1993; 1900: 2-14.
9. Månsson LG. Evaluation of radiographic procedures. Investigations related to chest imaging. Thesis. Go̊teborg University. 1994.
10. Fryback DG. A conceptual model for output measures in cost-effectiveness evaluation of diagnostic imaging. J Neuroradiol 1983; 10: 94-96.
11. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 88-94.
12. Welander U, McDavid WD, Sanderink GCH, Tronje G, Mörner A-C, Dove SB. Resolution as defined by line spread and modulation transfer functions for four digital intraoral radiographic systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994; 78: 109-115.
13. Mondou D, Bonnet E, Coudert J-L, Jourlin M, Molteni R, Pachod V. Criteria for the assessment of intrinsic performances of digital radiographic intraoral sensors. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 751-757.
14. Brettle DS, Workman A, Ellwood R, Launders JH, Horner K, Davies RM. The imaging performance of a storage phosphor system for dental radiography. Br J Radiol 1996; 69: 256-261.
15. Vandre RH, Pajak JC, Farman TT, Farman AG. Technical comparison of seven digital intraoral dental x-ray sensors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26: 282-283.
16. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF. Efficacy of digital ultra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent 1997; 25: 214-224.
17. Attaelmanan A, Borg E, Gröndahl H-G. Assessments of the physical performance of 2 generations of 2 direct digital intraoral sensors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 88: 517-523.
18. Borg E, Attaelmanan A, Gröndahl H-G. Image plate systems differ in physical performance. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89:.
19. Vucich JJ. The role of anatomic criteria in the evaluation of radiographic images. In: Haus AG, (ed). The physics of medical imaging. Recording system measurements and techniques. New York: American Association of Physics in Medicine, 1979; pp 573-587.
20. Kundel HL. Images, image quality and observer performance. Radiol 1979; 132: 265-271.
21. Borg E, Gröndahl H-G. On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 82-88.
22. Kashima I. Computed radiography with photostimulable phosphor in oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1995; 80: 577-598.
23. Lim KF, Loh EE-M, Hong YH. Intra-oral computed radiography an in vitro evaluation. J Dent 1996; 24: 359-364.
24. Gendex Dental Systems. DenOptix user manual and installation guide. DesPlaines, Ill: Gendex Dental Systems; 1997.
25. Molteni R. Direct digital dental x-ray imaging with Visualix/VIXA. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 235-243.
26. Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H. Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiol 1983; 22: 121-126.
27. Huda W, Rill LN, Benn DK, Pettigrew JC. Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 83: 725-731.
28. Yoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T, Tatsumi M, Tokumori K, Tanaka T et al. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2. Optimum exposure condition for detection of small mass changes in six intraoral radiography systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 123-129.
29. Wenzel A. Digital radiography and caries diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 3-11.
30. Versteeg CH, Sandelink GCH, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt PF. Effects of calibration and automatic grayscale adjustment on detectability of simulated bone lesions using a storage phosphor system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 240-244.