Quality of digital pre-implant tomography: Comparison of film-screen images with storage phosphor images at normal and low dose

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 322-326

  Ekestubbe, Annika ^a   Grondahl H G ^a   Molander, B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b Public Dental Service   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Dental implantation; Radiation dose; Tomography, digital

Indexed keywords

PHOSPHORUS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; RADIATION DOSE; TOMOGRAPHY; TOOTH IMPLANTATION; TREATMENT PLANNING; ANATOMY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PILOT STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

ADULT; AGED; ANATOMY, CROSS-SECTIONAL; DENTAL IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PILOT PROJECTS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 12144290609     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/50054523     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl H-G. Radiography in oral endosseous prosthetics. Göteborg: Nobel Biocare AB, 1996.
2. Frederiksen N. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80: 540-554.
3. Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D. Radiographic planning and assessment of endosseous oral implants. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
4. Schwarz MS, Rothman SLG, Chafetz N, Stauts B. Preoperative diagnostic radiology for the tissue-integrated prosthesis. In: Laney WR, Tolman DE (eds). Tissue integration in oral, orthopedic & maxillofacial reconstruction. Mayo Medical Center, Rochester, MN: Quintessence Books, 1990, pp 68-79.
5. Dula K, Mini R, Lambrecht J, Van der Stelt PF, Schneeberger P, Sanderink GCH, et al. Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral tomography of the maxilla and mandible prior to endosseous implant treatment. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 123-129.
6. Dula K, Mini R, Nat P, van der Stelt PF, Sanderink GCH, Schneeberger P, et al. Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: the Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 735-742.
7. Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 123-127.
8. Ekestubbe A, Thilander A, Gröndahl H-G. Absorbed doses and energy imparted from tomography for dental implant installation. A comparison of spiral tomography with the Scanora® technique with hypocycloidal tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radial 1992; 21: 65-69.
9. Lecomber A, Yoneyama Y, Lovelock D, Hosoi T, Adams A. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 255-259.
10. Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt PF, Lambrecht J, Schneeberger P, Buser D. Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible. Eur J Oral Sci 1996; 104: 503-510.
11. Ekestubbe A, Thilander A, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl H-G. Absorbed doses from computed tomography for dental implant surgery: comparison with conventional tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993; 22: 13-17.
12. Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Sokolowski TW. Effective dose and risk assessment from computed tomography of the maxillofacial complex. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24: 55-58.
13. Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl H-G. Quality of preimplant low-dose tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 88: 738-744.
14. Mouyen F, Benz C, Sonnabend E, Lodte J. Presentation and physical evaluation of RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989; 68: 238-242.
15. Dula K, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF, Mini R, Nat P, Buser D. Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in digital panoramic radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 86: 227-233.
16. Farman TT, Farman AG, Kelly MS, Firriolo FJ, Yancey JM, Stewart AV. Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography: effect of beam energy on radiation exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 36-40.
17. Farman AG, Farman TT. Extraoral and panoramic systems. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 257-272.
18. Gijbels F, Sanderink GCH, Bou Serhal C, Pauwels H, Jacobs R. Organ doses and subjective image quality of indirect digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 308-313.
19. Dannewitz B, Hassfeld S, Eickholz P, Mühling J. Effect of dose reduction in digital dental panoramic radiography on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 50-55.
20. Axelsson B, Petersen U, Wiltz H. Digital skeletal radiography. Reduction of absorbed dose by adaptation of exposure factors and image processing. Acta Radiol 2001; 42: 592-598.
21. Jonsson A, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Lundin B, Sanfridsson J, Pettersson H. Radiation dose reduction in computed skeletal radiography. Effect on image quality. Acta Radiol 1996; 37: 128-133.
22. Holje G, Jarlman O, Samuelsson L. Radiation doses and image information in digital pelvimetry with a phosphorous screen. Acta Radiol 1997; 38: 181-184.
23. Herrmann C, Sund P, Tingberg A, Kheddache S, Månsson LG, Almén A, et al. Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs. In: Krupinski EA (ed). Medical Imaging 2000: Image Perception and Performance. Proceedings of SPIE 2000; 3981: 251-257.
24. Tingberg A, Herrmann C, Besjakov J, Rodenacker K, Almén A, Sund P, et al. Evaluation of lumbar spine images with added pathology. In: Krupinski EA (ed). Medical Imaging 2000: Image Perception and Performance. Proceedings of SPIE 2000; 3981: 34-42.
25. Kheddache S, Denbratt L, Angelhed J, Schlossman D. Image intensifier based digital chest radiography. Visibility of lesions and anatomy. Acta Radiol 1993; 34: 618-621.
26. Leitz W, Månsson L, Hedberg-Vikström B, Kheddache S. In search of optimum chest radiography techniques. Br J Radiol 1993; 66: 314-321.
27. Kheddache S, Denbratt L, Angelhed JE. Digital chest radiography- optimizing image processing parameters for the visibility of chest lesions and anatomy. Eur J Radiol 1996; 22: 241-245.
28. Kheddache S, Kvist H. Digital mammography using storage phosphor plate technique-optimizing image processing parameters for the visibility of lesions and anatomy. Eur J Radiol 1997; 24: 237-244.
29. Almén A, Tingberg A, Mattsson S, Besjakov J, Kheddache S, Lanhede B, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1192-1199.
30. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Dance D, Lanhede B, Almén A, McVey G, et al. Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. Br J Radiol 2001; 74: 520-528.
31. Geijer H. Radiation dose and image quality in diagnostic radiology. Optimization of the dose-image quality relationship with clinical experience from scoliosis radiography, coronary intervention and a flat-panel digital detector. Acta Radiol Suppl 2002; 43: 1-43.
32. Sund P, Håkansson M, Lindskog L, Tylén U, Kheddache S, Månsson LG. Evaluation of displays for medical x-ray applications using observer performance. In: Krupinski EA (ed). Medical Imaging 2002: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. Proceedings of SPIE 2002; 4686: 139-144.
33. Chesters M. Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37: 1433-1476.
34. Baiter S. Digital image processing: a visual tour. MedicaMundi 1993; 38(2): 94-110.