OBJECTIVES: To access the influence of the addition of a lead foil to intraoral digital radiographic receptors on image contrast and approximal caries lesions diagnosis. METHODS: 40 posterior teeth were distributed in silicone phantoms composed of two premolars, two molars and a non-test canine. Radiographic images of the phantoms were obtained with and without the incorporation of a lead foil, using the Digora Optime and Digora Toto systems. Four observers scored the images for the presence of caries lesions, using a 5-point scale. Images of an aluminum step wedge were acquired with and without the incorporation of a lead foil. Gray values and standard deviation of gray values were calculated in different thickness of the step wedge and, then, contrast variation was calculated. RESULTS: Presence of a lead foil did not influence caries lesions diagnostic values, regardless of the type of digital system (p > 0.05). In general, the objective analysis was not influenced by the presence of a lead foil in any of the tested systems (p > 0.05). However, Digora Toto images showed greater gray values, lower standard deviation of gray values and lower contrast variation, regardless of the presence of the lead foil (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a lead foil to intraoral digital receptors did not influence image contrast nor caries lesions diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: To access the influence of the addition of a lead foil to intraoral digital radiographic receptors on image contrast and approximal caries lesions diagnosis. METHODS: 40 posterior teeth were distributed in silicone phantoms composed of two premolars, two molars and a non-test canine. Radiographic images of the phantoms were obtained with and without the incorporation of a lead foil, using the Digora Optime and Digora Toto systems. Four observers scored the images for the presence of caries lesions, using a 5-point scale. Images of an aluminum step wedge were acquired with and without the incorporation of a lead foil. Gray values and standard deviation of gray values were calculated in different thickness of the step wedge and, then, contrast variation was calculated. RESULTS: Presence of a lead foil did not influence caries lesions diagnostic values, regardless of the type of digital system (p > 0.05). In general, the objective analysis was not influenced by the presence of a lead foil in any of the tested systems (p > 0.05). However, Digora Toto images showed greater gray values, lower standard deviation of gray values and lower contrast variation, regardless of the presence of the lead foil (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a lead foil to intraoral digital receptors did not influence image contrast nor caries lesions diagnosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
dental caries; dental digital radiography; diagnostic imaging; image enhancement
Authors: Y Nejaim; A I V Silva; D M Brasil; K F Vasconcelos; F Haiter Neto; F N Boscolo Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 2.419