Digital camera resolution and proximal caries detection

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 253-257

  Prapayasatok, Sangsom ^a   Janhom, A ^a   Verochana, K ^a   Pramojanee, S ^a  

^a CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Dental caries; Digital camera; Digital radiography; Image resolution

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAMERA; DENTAL CARIES; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL IMAGING; ENAMEL; GOLD STANDARD; MOLAR TOOTH; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; PREMOLAR TOOTH; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; X RAY FILM;

BICUSPID; DENTAL CARIES; HUMANS; MOLAR; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; ROC CURVE; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 33746088452     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/32165678     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bassignani MJ, Bubash-Faust L, Ciambotti J, Moran R, McHenny J. Conversion of teaching file cases from film to digital format: a comparison between use of a diagnostic-quality digitizer and use of flatbed scanner with transparency adapter. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: 536-542.
2. Kundel HK, Mezrich JL, Brickman I, Siegel R, Miller WT, Epstein DM, et al. Digital chest imaging: comparison of two film image digitizers with a classification task. Radiology 1987; 165: 747-752.
3. Wilson AJ, Hodge JC. Digitized radiographs in skeletal trauma: a performance comparison between a digital workstation and the original film images. Radiology 1995; 196: 565-568.
4. Andres BM, Khanna AJ, Wenz Sr JF, Faust AF, Frassica FJ. A comparison of digital cameras: features essential for the orthopaedic surgeon. Clin Orthop 2004; 421: 10-16.
5. Krupinski E, Gonzales M, Gonzales C, Weinstein RS. Evaluation of a digital camera for acquiring radiographic images for telemedicine applications. Telemed J E Health 2000; 6: 297-302.
6. Fuge KN, Stuck AM, Love RM. A comparison of digitally scanned radiographs with conventional film for the detection of small endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 1998; 31: 123-126.
7. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 155-161.
8. Janhom A, van Ginkel FC, van Amerongen JP, van der Stell PF. Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 166-171.
9. Held CL, Ferguson DJ, Gallo MW. Cephalometric digitization: A determination of the minimum scanner settings necessary for precise landmark identification. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 472-481.
10. Goga R, Chandler NP, Love RM. Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 103-107.
11. Luostarinen T. Digitized conventional radiograph. Letter to the editor. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 420-421.
12. Thylstrup A, Fejerkov O. Clinical and pathological features of dental caries. In: Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O (eds). Textbook of clinical cariology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard textbook, 1994, pp. 111-157.
13. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Larheim TA, Grondahl H-O. Effect of image magnification of digitized bitewing radiographs on approximal caries detection: in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24: 255-259.
14. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Nowak G, Hellmich M. Influence of displayed image size on radiographie detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 242-246.
15. Davidson HC, Johnston DJ, Christian ME, Harnsberger HR. Comparison of radiographic image quality from four digitization devices as viewed on computer monitors. J Digit Imaging 2001; 14: 24-29.
16. Brault B, Hoskinson J, Armbrust L, Milliken G. Comparison of seven digital cameras for digitizing radiographs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2004; 45: 298-304.
17. Krupinski EA. Softcopy interpretation. Available from: http://www. emedicine.com/radio/topic872.htm