Visually detectable resolution of intraoral dental films

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 385-389

  Künzel, Andreas ^a,b   Scherkowski, D ^a   Willers, R ^a   Becker, J ^a  

^a HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Poliklin Zahnarztliche Chir/A   (Germany)

Author keywords

Digitization; Film processing; Line pairs; Observer performance; Radiology

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; COMPUTER; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY; VISION; X RAY FILM; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSIOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC MAGNIFICATION; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; VISUAL PERCEPTION; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 14244251356     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/22478778     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Frederiksen NL. Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80: 540-554.
2. Farman TT, Farman AG. Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 41-45.
3. Ludlow JB, Platin E, Mol A. Characteristics of Kodak Insight, an F-speed intraoral film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 120-129.
4. Alder ME. Intraoral digital radiography. Tex Dent J 1995; 112: 31-35.
5. Abreu Jr M, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB. Detection of caries with conventional digital imaging and tuned aperture computed tomography using CRT monitor and laptop displays. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 88: 234-238.
6. Attaelmanan A, Borg E, Grondahl HG. Digitisation and display of intra-oral films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 97-102.
7. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 293-297.
8. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 203-207.
9. Espelid I. The influence of viewing conditions on observer performance in dental radiology. Acta Odontol Scand 1987; 45: 153-161.
10. Kitagawa H, Farman AG, Scheetz JP, Brown WP, Lewis J, Benefiel M, et al. Comparison of three intra-oral storage phosphor systems using subjective image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 272-276.
11. Ludlow J, Mol A. Image-receptor performance: a comparison of Trophy RVG UI sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 109-119.
12. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. Effect of image magnification of digitized bitewing radiographs on approximal caries detection: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24: 255-259.
13. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. The effect of cathode ray tube display format on observer performance in dental digitized radiography: comparison with plain films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1994; 23: 206-210.
14. Spens E, Karsch T. Detailerkennbarkeit konventioneller zahnärztlicher Röntgenaufnahmen unter Praxisbedingungen. ZWR 2000; 10: 445-450.
15. Thunthy KH, Manson-Hing LR. A study of the resolution of dental films and screens. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1976; 42: 255-266.
16. Grüsser O-J, Grüsser-Cornehls U. Gesichtssinn und Oculomotorik. In: Schmidt R, Thews G, Lang F (eds). Physiologie des Menschen. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2000, pp 278-315.
17. Ludlow JB, Abreu Jr M. Performance of film, desktop monitor and laptop displays in caries detection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 26-30.
18. Patel N, Rushton VE, Macfarlane TV, Horner K. The influence of viewing conditions on radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation. Br Dent J 2000; 189: 40-42.
19. Ludlow JB, Abreu Jr M, Mol A. Performance of a new F-speed film for caries detection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 110-113.
20. Price C. Sensitometric evaluation of a new F-speed dental radiographic film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 29-34.
21. Geist JR, Brand JW. Sensitometric comparison of speed group E and F dental radiographic films. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 147-152.
22. Thunthy KH, Ireland EJ. A comparison of the visibility of caries on Kodak F-speed (insight) and D-speed (Ultra-speed) films. LDA J 2001; 60: 31-32.
23. Sheaffer JC, Eleazer PD, Scheetz JP, Clark SJ, Farman AG. A comparison of D-, E-, and F-speed conventional intraoral radiographic films in endodontic measurement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93: 337-340.
24. Syriopoulos K, Velders XL, Sanderink GC, van Der Steh PF. Sensitometric and clinical evaluation of a new F-speed dental X-ray film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 40-44.
25. White SC, Yoon DC. Comparison of sensitometric and diagnostic performance of two films. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000; 21: 530-532.
26. Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW, Pilgram TK, Shrout MK. Quantitative evaluation of digital dental radiograph imaging systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990; 70: 661-668.
27. Shrout MK, Potter BJ, Yurgalavage HM, Hildebolt CF, Vannier MW. 35-mm film scanner as an intraoral dental radiograph digitizer. I: A quantitative evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 502-509.
28. Price C, Radan E. An endodontic file model to compare geometric and digital unsharpness in dental radiographs. In: Farman AG, Ruprecht A, Gibbs S, Scarfe WC (eds). Advances in maxillofacial imaging. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1997, pp 271-278.
29. Janhom A, van Ginkel FC, van Amerongen JP, van der Stelt PF. Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 166-171.