A Comparison of Two Intraoral CCD Sensor Systems in Terms of Image Quality and Interobserver Agreement;Vergleich der Bildqualität von zwei intraoralen CCD-Sensor-Systemen unter Berücksichtigung des Befunder-Agreements

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 141-150

  Schulze, D ^a   Rother, U J ^b   Fuhrmann, A W ^b   Tietke, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Blooming; CCD sensors; Edge artefacts; Interobserver agreement; Intraoral digital imaging; Kappa value; RVG5 filter

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BIOSENSOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RELIABILITY; TECHNIQUE;

ARTIFACTS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; TOOTH; TOOTH ROOT;

EID: 0242607118     PISSN: 14634201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Sanderink GC. 1993. Imaging: new versus traditional technological aids. Int Dent J 1993;43:335-342.
2. Farman AG, Scarfe WC, et al. Computed dental radiography: evaluation of a new charge-coupled device-based intraoral radiographic system. Quintessence Int 1995; 26:399-404.
3. Youssefzadeh S, Gahleitner A, et al. Conventional dental radiography and future prospectives (article in German). Radiologe 1999;39:1018-1026.
4. Sanderink GC, Miles DA. Intraoral detectors. CCD, CMOS, TFT, and other devices." Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:249-255.
5. Schulz RF. Digital detection systems for projection radiography (article in German). Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2001;173:1137-1146.
6. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
7. Krummenauer F, Kalden P et al. Cohen's kappa or McNemar's test? A comparison of binary repeated measurements (article in German). Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1999;171:226-31.
8. Wenzel A. Sensor noise in direct digital imaging. The RadioVisioGraphy, Sens-a-Ray, and Visualix/Vixa systems evaluated by subtraction radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;77:70-74.
9. Mondou D, Bonnet E et al. Criteria for the assessment of intrinsic performances of digital radiographic intraoral sensors. Acad Radiol 1996;3:751-757.
10. Attaelmanan AG, Borg E et al. 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.
11. Attaelmanan AG, Borg E et al. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:611-615.
12. Sanderink GC, Huiskens R et al. Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The Radio-VisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78:125-132.
13. Borg E. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography. Swed Dent J Suppl 1999;139:1-67.
14. Gijbels F, De Meyer AM et al. The subjective image quality of direct digital and conventional panoramic radiography. Clin Oral Investig 2000;4:162-167.
15. Krug B, Friedmann G et al. A comparison of digital luminescence radiography and conventional radiodiagnosis in sialography (article in German). ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 1989;150:718-722.
16. Wenzel A. Digital imaging for dental caries. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:319-338.
17. Sommers TM, Mauriello SM, et al. Pre-clinical performance comparing intraoral film and CCD-based systems. J Dent Hyg 2002;76:26-33.