R Goga1, N P Chandler, R M Love. 1. Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. gogaradu@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare digital images of conventional radiographs with the original radiographs for perceived clarity of endodontic files, periapical lesions and carious lesions, and to establish the diagnostic value of the digital images. METHODS: Four groups of ten radiographs were used: standardized bitewings demonstrating carious lesions, periapical radiographs of apical lesions, periapical radiographs showing endodontic files of various sizes at working length, and standardized periapical radiographs with size 08 files at working length. Radiographs were photographed using an Olympus C 2500-L digital camera and a Nikon D1X digital camera and were scanned using a Nikon Supercoolscan 4000 ED film/slide scanner. The digital images were then transferred to a Toshiba Satellite 2210 laptop. Three general dental practitioners compared each conventional radiograph with the three matching digital images. Images were ranked for clarity and were assessed for diagnostic quality. Data were analysed using General Estimating Equations. RESULTS: The clarity and diagnostic quality of the conventional radiographs were superior to the digital images produced by the three techniques (P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the Nikon D1X and Camedia 2500-L cameras for clarity or diagnostic quality. The scanner was equivalent to the Camedia 2500-L camera for diagnostic quality, but was otherwise inferior to both cameras. CONCLUSIONS: Digitizing conventional radiographs using current high-grade digital cameras or scanners does not produce images of diagnostic quality. Improved resolution of viewing monitors is necessary to fully harness the potential of digital technology.
OBJECTIVES: To compare digital images of conventional radiographs with the original radiographs for perceived clarity of endodontic files, periapical lesions and carious lesions, and to establish the diagnostic value of the digital images. METHODS: Four groups of ten radiographs were used: standardized bitewings demonstrating carious lesions, periapical radiographs of apical lesions, periapical radiographs showing endodontic files of various sizes at working length, and standardized periapical radiographs with size 08 files at working length. Radiographs were photographed using an Olympus C 2500-L digital camera and a Nikon D1X digital camera and were scanned using a Nikon Supercoolscan 4000 ED film/slide scanner. The digital images were then transferred to a Toshiba Satellite 2210 laptop. Three general dental practitioners compared each conventional radiograph with the three matching digital images. Images were ranked for clarity and were assessed for diagnostic quality. Data were analysed using General Estimating Equations. RESULTS: The clarity and diagnostic quality of the conventional radiographs were superior to the digital images produced by the three techniques (P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the Nikon D1X and Camedia 2500-L cameras for clarity or diagnostic quality. The scanner was equivalent to the Camedia 2500-L camera for diagnostic quality, but was otherwise inferior to both cameras. CONCLUSIONS: Digitizing conventional radiographs using current high-grade digital cameras or scanners does not produce images of diagnostic quality. Improved resolution of viewing monitors is necessary to fully harness the potential of digital technology.