OBJECTIVE: Two digital image processing methods, correction for X-ray attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response, have been developed. The aim of the present study was to compare digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response by means of a perceptibility curve test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radiographs were exposed of an aluminium test object containing holes ranging from 0.03 mm to 0.30 mm with increments of 0.03 mm. Fourteen radiographs were exposed with the Dixi system (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) and twelve radiographs were exposed with the F1 iOX system (Fimet Oy, Monninkylä, Finland) from low to high exposures covering the full exposure ranges of the systems. Radiographs obtained from the Dixi and F1 iOX systems were 12 bit and 8 bit images, respectively. Original radiographs were then processed for correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response. Thus, two series of radiographs were created. Ten viewers evaluated all the radiographs in the same random order under the same viewing conditions. The object detail having the lowest perceptible contrast was recorded for each observer. Perceptibility curves were plotted according to the mean of observer data. RESULTS: The perceptibility curves for processed radiographs obtained with the F1 iOX system are higher than those for originals in the exposure range up to the peak, where the curves are basically the same. For radiographs exposed with the Dixi system, perceptibility curves for processed radiographs are higher than those for originals for all exposures. Perceptibility curves show that for 8 bit radiographs obtained from the F1 iOX system, the contrast threshold was increased in processed radiographs up to the peak, while for 12 bit radiographs obtained with the Dixi system, the contrast threshold was increased in processed radiographs for all exposures. When comparisons were made between radiographs corrected for attenuation and corrected for attenuation and visual response, basically no differences were found. CONCLUSION: Radiographs processed for correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response may improve perception, especially for 12 bit originals.
OBJECTIVE: Two digital image processing methods, correction for X-ray attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response, have been developed. The aim of the present study was to compare digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response by means of a perceptibility curve test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radiographs were exposed of an aluminium test object containing holes ranging from 0.03 mm to 0.30 mm with increments of 0.03 mm. Fourteen radiographs were exposed with the Dixi system (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland) and twelve radiographs were exposed with the F1 iOX system (Fimet Oy, Monninkylä, Finland) from low to high exposures covering the full exposure ranges of the systems. Radiographs obtained from the Dixi and F1 iOX systems were 12 bit and 8 bit images, respectively. Original radiographs were then processed for correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response. Thus, two series of radiographs were created. Ten viewers evaluated all the radiographs in the same random order under the same viewing conditions. The object detail having the lowest perceptible contrast was recorded for each observer. Perceptibility curves were plotted according to the mean of observer data. RESULTS: The perceptibility curves for processed radiographs obtained with the F1 iOX system are higher than those for originals in the exposure range up to the peak, where the curves are basically the same. For radiographs exposed with the Dixi system, perceptibility curves for processed radiographs are higher than those for originals for all exposures. Perceptibility curves show that for 8 bit radiographs obtained from the F1 iOX system, the contrast threshold was increased in processed radiographs up to the peak, while for 12 bit radiographs obtained with the Dixi system, the contrast threshold was increased in processed radiographs for all exposures. When comparisons were made between radiographs corrected for attenuation and corrected for attenuation and visual response, basically no differences were found. CONCLUSION: Radiographs processed for correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response may improve perception, especially for 12 bit originals.