OBJECTIVES: To assess the dynamic range and enhancement ability of radiographs acquired with contemporary digital systems. METHODS: Five repeated periapical radiographs of human mandibles with an aluminium step-wedge were acquired using two sensor-based and three photostimulable phosphor plate-based systems and an X-ray unit at ten exposure times 0.020, 0.032, 0.063, 0.080, 0.100, 0.200, 0.320, 0.400, 0.500, and 0.630 s. All images had their brightness and contrast enhanced by two experienced oral and maxillofacial radiologists in consensus and were exported as both the original and enhanced file formats. Mean grey values were obtained from the aluminium steps and tabulated with their corresponding thicknesses for each exposure time, digital radiographic system, and file format. Images with saturated steps were excluded and the mean grey values from the remaining images were averaged to assess image brightness and the angular coefficient of the linear trendlines was generated from the relationship between mean grey values and their corresponding aluminium thicknesses to assess image contrast. Brightness and contrast values were compared using two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Photostimulable phosphor plate-based digital radiographic systems had a broader dynamic range. Longer exposure times produced original images with lower brightness and variable contrast (p < 0.05). Subjective enhancement significantly increased or reduced brightness and/or contrast in some systems (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary digital radiographic systems present different dynamic ranges and exposure-related brightness and contrast. Image enhancement may be a valuable tool at slightly suboptimal exposure times.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the dynamic range and enhancement ability of radiographs acquired with contemporary digital systems. METHODS: Five repeated periapical radiographs of human mandibles with an aluminium step-wedge were acquired using two sensor-based and three photostimulable phosphor plate-based systems and an X-ray unit at ten exposure times 0.020, 0.032, 0.063, 0.080, 0.100, 0.200, 0.320, 0.400, 0.500, and 0.630 s. All images had their brightness and contrast enhanced by two experienced oral and maxillofacial radiologists in consensus and were exported as both the original and enhanced file formats. Mean grey values were obtained from the aluminium steps and tabulated with their corresponding thicknesses for each exposure time, digital radiographic system, and file format. Images with saturated steps were excluded and the mean grey values from the remaining images were averaged to assess image brightness and the angular coefficient of the linear trendlines was generated from the relationship between mean grey values and their corresponding aluminium thicknesses to assess image contrast. Brightness and contrast values were compared using two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Photostimulable phosphor plate-based digital radiographic systems had a broader dynamic range. Longer exposure times produced original images with lower brightness and variable contrast (p < 0.05). Subjective enhancement significantly increased or reduced brightness and/or contrast in some systems (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary digital radiographic systems present different dynamic ranges and exposure-related brightness and contrast. Image enhancement may be a valuable tool at slightly suboptimal exposure times.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dental Digital Radiography; Dental Radiography; Digital Image Processing; Image Enhancement; Radiographic Image Enhancement