Literature DB >> 26891747

The effect of anatomical noise on perception of low contrast in intra-oral radiographs: an in vitro study.

Lars Olsson1,2, Mats Nilsson1,3, Björn Svenson4, Kristina Hellén-Halme1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Radiographic images suffer from varying amounts of noise. The most studied and discussed of these is random noise. However, recent research has shown that the projected anatomy contributes substantially to noise, especially when detecting low-contrast objects in the images. Our aim, therefore, was to evaluate the extent to which overprojected anatomical noise affects the detection of low-contrast objects in intra-oral images.
METHODS: Our study used four common sensor models. With each sensor, we took four series of images, three series with and one series without an anatomical phantom present. In each series, we exposed a low-contrast phantom at 18 different exposure times using a standardized method. 4 observers evaluated all 288 images.
RESULTS: The low-contrast characteristics differed substantially when imaging low contrast on a homogeneous background compared with imaging low contrast when an anatomical phantom was present. For three of the sensors, optimal exposure times for low-contrast imaging were found, while the fourth sensor displayed a completely different behaviour.
CONCLUSIONS: Calibrating the low-contrast properties of an imaging system using low-contrast objects on a homogeneous background is not recommended. On an anatomical background, low-contrast properties are completely different, and these will mimic the clinical situation much more closely, directing the operator how to best use the system. There is a clear demand for further research on this subject.

Keywords:  contrast sensitivity; dental; digital; radiography

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26891747      PMCID: PMC4846177          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  15 in total

1.  Image quality in digital radiographic systems.

Authors:  Solange Maria de Almeida; Ana Emília Figueiredo de Oliveira; Rívea Inês Ferreira; Frab Norberto Bóscolo
Journal:  Braz Dent J       Date:  2003

2.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: summary of the RADIUS chest trial.

Authors:  Markus Håkansson; Magnus Båth; Sara Börjesson; Susanne Kheddache; Anna Grahn; Mark Ruschin; Anders Tingberg; Sören Mattsson; Lars Gunnar Månsson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  Comparison of technical and anatomical noise in digital thorax X-ray images.

Authors:  Christoph Hoeschen; Oleg Tischenko; Egbert Buhr; Hartmut Illers
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  In vitro comparison of conventional film and direct digital imaging in the detection of approximal caries.

Authors:  V M Castro; J O Katz; P K Hardman; A G Glaros; P Spencer
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 5.  Quality assurance in digital dental imaging: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eija Metsälä; Anja Henner; Marja Ekholm
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 2.331

6.  Effect of ambient light and monitor brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs: an in vitro study.

Authors:  K Hellén-Halme; A Petersson; G Warfvinge; M Nilsson
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: overall comparison between conventional and direct digital radiography.

Authors:  B Kullendorff; M Nilsson; M Rohlin
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  1996-09

8.  Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies.

Authors:  L Schropp; N S Alyass; A Wenzel; A Stavropoulos
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.419

9.  The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.

Authors:  Björn Cederström; Erik Fredenberg
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 10.  Update on new technologies in digital mammography.

Authors:  Stephanie K Patterson; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-08-14
View more
  4 in total

1.  COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.

Authors:  Helle Precht; Claus Bjørn Outzen; Martin Weber Kusk; Malene Bisgaard; Dag Waaler
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Numerical Evaluation of Image Contrast for Thicker and Thinner Objects among Current Intraoral Digital Imaging Systems.

Authors:  Oyunbat Dashpuntsag; Midori Yoshida; Ryosuke Kasai; Naoki Maeda; Hidehiko Hosoki; Eiichi Honda
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-04-09       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Application of portable digital radiography for dental investigations of ancient Egyptian mummies during archaeological excavations: Evaluation and discussion of the advantages and limitations of different approaches and projections.

Authors:  Roger Seiler; Patrick Eppenberger; Frank Rühli
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2018-09-18

4.  Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth.

Authors:  Luciano Andrei Francio; Fernanda Evangelista Silva; Claudia Scigliano Valerio; Claudia Assunção E Alves Cardoso; Wellington Corrêa Jansen; Flávio Ricardo Manzi
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2018-06-19
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.