Hema Udupa1, Peter Mah, Stephen B Dove, William D McDavid. 1. Resident, Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Division, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, TX, USA. Electronic address: udupa@livemail.uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. STUDY DESIGN: Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured and stored. Incident exposures were measured using a radiation meter. Gray scale, spatial resolution, and contrast/detail detectability were evaluated. Presence of 7 distinct steps spanning the gray levels from 0 to 255 was used to define the exposure latitude. An "optimal" exposure, the lowest exposure where maximum spatial resolution and contrast/detail detectability were achieved, was determined. RESULTS: The systems varied greatly in latitude, "optimal" exposure, and image quality. This may not be readily apparent to the naked eye or when clinical images are compared. CONCLUSIONS: Objective assessment of image quality with a quality assurance tool makes it possible to evaluate and compare the various intraoral digital systems.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare imaging properties of 20 intraoral digital systems objectively. STUDY DESIGN: Using a direct current x-ray source and a radiographic phantom, a series of radiographs was made from the lowest exposure time until the sensor saturated. Images were captured and stored. Incident exposures were measured using a radiation meter. Gray scale, spatial resolution, and contrast/detail detectability were evaluated. Presence of 7 distinct steps spanning the gray levels from 0 to 255 was used to define the exposure latitude. An "optimal" exposure, the lowest exposure where maximum spatial resolution and contrast/detail detectability were achieved, was determined. RESULTS: The systems varied greatly in latitude, "optimal" exposure, and image quality. This may not be readily apparent to the naked eye or when clinical images are compared. CONCLUSIONS: Objective assessment of image quality with a quality assurance tool makes it possible to evaluate and compare the various intraoral digital systems.
Authors: Giuseppe Acri; Sergio Gurgone; Claudio Iovane; Marco B Romeo; Daniele Borzelli; Barbara Testagrossa Journal: J Biomed Phys Eng Date: 2021-04-01