Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 103-107

  Goga, R ^a   Chandler, N P ^a   Love, R M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Photography; Radiography, dental, digital

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER TERMINAL; DENTAL CARIES; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS; TOOTH PERIAPICAL DISEASE; TOOTH PULP; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

COMPUTER TERMINALS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL PULP CAVITY; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERIAPICAL DISEASES; PHOTOGRAPHY, DENTAL; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, BITEWING; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; STATISTICS;

EID: 5044246179     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/13010370     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sanderink GC, Huiskens R, van der Stelt PF, Welander US, Stheeman SE. Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994; 78: 125-132.
2. Garcia AA, Navarro LF, Castello VU, Laliga RM. Evaluationofadigital radiography to estimate working length. J Endod 1997; 23: 363-365.
3. Cederberg RA, Tidwell E, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW. Endodontic working length assessment. Comparison of storage phosphor digital imaging and radiographic film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85: 325-328.
4. Mentes A, Gencoglu N. Canal length evaluation of curved canals by direct digital or conventional radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93: 88-91.
5. Naoum HJ, Chandler NP, Love RM. Conventional versus storage phosphor-plate digital images to visualize the root canal system contrasted with a radiopaque medium. J Endod 2003; 29: 349-352.
6. Friedlander LT, Love RM, Chandler NP. A comparison of phosphor-plate digital images with conventional radiographs for the perceived clarity of fine endodontic files and periapical lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93: 321-327.
7. 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.
8. Larson A, Lynch DA, Zeligman B, Harlow C, Vanoni C, Thieme G, et al. Accuracy of diagnosis of subtle chest disease and subtle fractures with a teleradiology system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 19-22.
9. Schellingerhout D, Chew FS, Mullins ME, Gonzalez RG. Projected digital radiologic images for teaching: balance of image quality with data size constraints. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 157-162.
10. Niamtu J. 3rd. Techno pearls for digital image management. Dermatol Surg 2002; 28: 946-950.
11. Chong BS, Pitt Ford TR, Wilson RF. Radiological assessment of the effects of potential root-end filling materials on healing after endodontic surgery. Endod Dent Traumatol 1997; 13: 176-179.
12. Sandler J, Murray A. Manipulation of digital photographs. J Orthod 2002; 29: 189-194.
13. Bengel W. Digital photography in the dental practice - an overview (II). Int J Comput Dent 2000; 3: 121-132.
14. Behle C. Photography and the operating microscope in dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc 2001; 29: 765-771.
15. Mistak EJ, Loushine RJ, Primack PD, West LA, Runyan DA. Interpretation of periapical lesions comparing conventional, direct digital, and telephonically transmitted radiographic images. J Endod 1998; 24: 262-266.
16. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 203-207.
17. Versteeg KH, Sanderink GC, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt PF. Estimating distances on direct digital images and conventional radiographs. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 439-443.
18. 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.
19. Parry BR, Williams SM. Competency and the colonoscopist: a learning curve. Aust N Z J Surg 1991; 61: 419-422.
20. Goldman M, Pearson AH, Darzenta N. Endodontic success-who's reading the radiograph? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972; 33: 432-437.
21. Saunders MB, Gulabivala K, Holt R, Kahan RS. Reliability of radiographic observations recorded on a proforma measured using inter- and intra-observer variation: a preliminary study. Int Endod J 2000; 33: 272-278.
22. Eckerbom M, Andersson JE, Magnusson T. Interobserver variation in radiographic examination of endodontic variables. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986; 2: 243-246.