T M Lehmann1, H G Gröndahl, D K Benn. 1. Institute of Medical Informatics, Aachen University of Technology (RWTH), Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To review computerized a posteriori techniques for geometry and contrast registration prior to digital subtraction in dental radiography; (2) to define a uniform notation for their methodological and technical classification and based on this key code; (3) to derive criteria for successful application of computer-based a posteriori registration for routine clinical subtraction. METHODS: All techniques are classified with respect to the (1) dimension of geometry registration; (2) origin; (3) abstraction level, and (4) linkage of features used for registration of geometry; (5) elasticity; (6) domain, and (7) parameter determination of the geometrical transform used; (8) interaction of geometrical registration; as well as (9) origin of features, (10) model of transform, and (11) interaction of procedure for contrast correction. RESULTS: With respect to clinical practicability, superior registration techniques are based on the low level abstraction of intrinsic features for both geometry and contrast registration. By approximately linking the features, a global projective transform should be generated for geometry registration by automatic methods, while automatic contrast correction should be non-parametric. This challenge is met only by one out of 36 published algorithms. Hence, although numerous computer-based techniques have been published, only a few of them are applied more than once in practice. CONCLUSION: The key code proposed in this paper is useful for technical classification of a posteriori registration methods in dental radiography and allows their objective comparison. Further investigations will focus on standardization of practicable procedures to evaluate the robustness of competing methods.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To review computerized a posteriori techniques for geometry and contrast registration prior to digital subtraction in dental radiography; (2) to define a uniform notation for their methodological and technical classification and based on this key code; (3) to derive criteria for successful application of computer-based a posteriori registration for routine clinical subtraction. METHODS: All techniques are classified with respect to the (1) dimension of geometry registration; (2) origin; (3) abstraction level, and (4) linkage of features used for registration of geometry; (5) elasticity; (6) domain, and (7) parameter determination of the geometrical transform used; (8) interaction of geometrical registration; as well as (9) origin of features, (10) model of transform, and (11) interaction of procedure for contrast correction. RESULTS: With respect to clinical practicability, superior registration techniques are based on the low level abstraction of intrinsic features for both geometry and contrast registration. By approximately linking the features, a global projective transform should be generated for geometry registration by automatic methods, while automatic contrast correction should be non-parametric. This challenge is met only by one out of 36 published algorithms. Hence, although numerous computer-based techniques have been published, only a few of them are applied more than once in practice. CONCLUSION: The key code proposed in this paper is useful for technical classification of a posteriori registration methods in dental radiography and allows their objective comparison. Further investigations will focus on standardization of practicable procedures to evaluate the robustness of competing methods.