X-Q Shi1, D Benchimol, K Näsström. 1. Oral Facial Diagnostics and Surgery, Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The psychophysical properties of a new complementary metal oxide semi-conductor-based detector, ProSensor(®) (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), in terms of dose response function and perceptibility curve test were performed and compared with those of a charged couple device-based sensor, Dixi(®) (Planmeca Oy). METHODS: Dose response functions at 66 kVp for a Dixi and a ProSensor were determined by means of multiple exposures to a homogeneous X-ray field covering the whole exposure range. The entry dose of each exposure was measured and registered. The mean grey level in each image was plotted as function of the corresponding exposures for both digital systems. Radiographs of a test object containing ten holes of increasing depth were obtained throughout the exposure range of the two digital sensors at 66 kVp. 12 observers were asked to register the number of perceptible holes in each radiograph. Based on the mean value of the observers' evaluation, the perceptibility curves were constructed, and the integral value under the perceptibility curves were compared between two intraoral sensors. RESULTS: The results based on dose response function showed that the ProSensor was more sensitive than the Dixi sensor. Paired t-test showed that the minimal perceptible low-contrast details were significantly higher for the ProSensor than for the Dixi sensor (p < 0.001). The integrals below the two perceptibility curves were 33.4 and 69.2 for the Dixi and ProSensor, respectively. CONCLUSION: Applying the new ProSensor may be beneficial to patients owing to its reduced radiation dose and increased perception for low-contrast details in dentistry.
OBJECTIVES: The psychophysical properties of a new complementary metal oxide semi-conductor-based detector, ProSensor(®) (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), in terms of dose response function and perceptibility curve test were performed and compared with those of a charged couple device-based sensor, Dixi(®) (Planmeca Oy). METHODS: Dose response functions at 66 kVp for a Dixi and a ProSensor were determined by means of multiple exposures to a homogeneous X-ray field covering the whole exposure range. The entry dose of each exposure was measured and registered. The mean grey level in each image was plotted as function of the corresponding exposures for both digital systems. Radiographs of a test object containing ten holes of increasing depth were obtained throughout the exposure range of the two digital sensors at 66 kVp. 12 observers were asked to register the number of perceptible holes in each radiograph. Based on the mean value of the observers' evaluation, the perceptibility curves were constructed, and the integral value under the perceptibility curves were compared between two intraoral sensors. RESULTS: The results based on dose response function showed that the ProSensor was more sensitive than the Dixi sensor. Paired t-test showed that the minimal perceptible low-contrast details were significantly higher for the ProSensor than for the Dixi sensor (p < 0.001). The integrals below the two perceptibility curves were 33.4 and 69.2 for the Dixi and ProSensor, respectively. CONCLUSION: Applying the new ProSensor may be beneficial to patients owing to its reduced radiation dose and increased perception for low-contrast details in dentistry.
Entities:
Keywords:
CCD; CMOS technique; digital intraoral detector; digital radiography; intraoral radiograph; perception
Authors: K Yoshiura; H C Stamatakis; U Welander; W D McDavid; X Q Shi; S Ban; T Kawazu; T Chikui; S Kanda Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 2.419
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: K Yoshiura; U Welander; W D McDavid; G Li; X-Q Shi; E Nakayama; M Shimizu; K Okamura; S Kanda Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: K Yoshiura; H Stamatakis; X Q Shi; U Welander; W D McDavid; J Kristoffersen; G Tronje Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: K Yoshiura; T Kawazu; T Chikui; M Tatsumi; K Tokumori; T Tanaka; S Kanda Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 1999-01
Authors: K Yoshiura; T Kawazu; T Chikui; M Tatsumi; K Tokumori; T Tanaka; S Kanda Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 1999-01
Authors: Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd Yusof; Nur Liyana Abdul Rahman; Amiza Aqiela Ahmad Asri; Noor Ilyani Othman; Ilham Wan Mokhtar Journal: Imaging Sci Dent Date: 2017-12-12