OBJECTIVES: To compare and analyze the perceived clarity and diagnostic value of Conventional periapical Radiographs (CRs) with those of their Digitized Periapical Images (DIs) and Processed Digitized Periapical Images (PDIs) counterparts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty two intraoral periapical radiographs of patients with clinically suspected periapical pathosis were made to constitute the group of CRs. These were photographed by using a Canon Power Shot SD500 (7.1 Megapixel) digital camera and the unaltered images were transferred to a computer laptop, to form the group of DIs. Subsequently, the contrast and brightness of these images were modified to represent the group of PDIs. Two experienced oral radiologists independently evaluated 5 specific apical and periapical region parameters of all the 42 CRs, DIs and PDIs for perceived image quality and diagnostic value and graded them on a three point grading scale. Conventional radiographs served as the control. Data were analyzed by using paired t-test and Kappa analysis. RESULTS: The clarity and diagnostic quality of the PDIs were statistically significant as compared to those of their conventional counterparts. In comparison, the DIs group fared badly, with deterioration of the image quality. The interobserver agreement was good and all the results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Indirectly digitizing the radiographs by employing a digital camera and further digitally processing the images resulted in an improvement in their perceived clarity and they enhanced their diagnostic properties.
OBJECTIVES: To compare and analyze the perceived clarity and diagnostic value of Conventional periapical Radiographs (CRs) with those of their Digitized Periapical Images (DIs) and Processed Digitized Periapical Images (PDIs) counterparts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty two intraoral periapical radiographs of patients with clinically suspected periapical pathosis were made to constitute the group of CRs. These were photographed by using a Canon Power Shot SD500 (7.1 Megapixel) digital camera and the unaltered images were transferred to a computer laptop, to form the group of DIs. Subsequently, the contrast and brightness of these images were modified to represent the group of PDIs. Two experienced oral radiologists independently evaluated 5 specific apical and periapical region parameters of all the 42 CRs, DIs and PDIs for perceived image quality and diagnostic value and graded them on a three point grading scale. Conventional radiographs served as the control. Data were analyzed by using paired t-test and Kappa analysis. RESULTS: The clarity and diagnostic quality of the PDIs were statistically significant as compared to those of their conventional counterparts. In comparison, the DIs group fared badly, with deterioration of the image quality. The interobserver agreement was good and all the results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Indirectly digitizing the radiographs by employing a digital camera and further digitally processing the images resulted in an improvement in their perceived clarity and they enhanced their diagnostic properties.
Authors: K Yoshiura; U Welander; X Q Shi; G Li; T Kawazu; M Tatsumi; K Okamura; W D McDavid; S Kanda Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: P R Dias da Silva; M Martins Marques; W Steagall; F Medeiros Mendes; C A Lascala Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.419