A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.

OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to evaluate the subjective image quality and reliability of two digital sensors. In addition, the image quality of the two sensors evaluated by specialists and general dentists were compared. METHODS 30 intraoral bitewings from five patients were included in the study, 15 were exposed with a Dixi sensor (CCD-based) and 15 with a ProSensor (CMOS-based) using modified parallel technique. Three radiologists and three general dentists evaluated the images in pair. A five-point scale was used to register the image quality. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis was performed to compare the image quality and the observer agreement was assessed in terms of intra class correlation co-efficient. RESULTS No statistically significant difference was found on image quality between the sensors. The average scores of the observer agreement were moderate with an average of 0.66 and an interval of 0.30 to 0.87, suggesting that there was a large variation on preference of image quality. However, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of the area under the VGC- curves between the specialist group and the general dentist group ( p = 0.043), in which the specialist group tended to favor the ProSensor. CONCLUSIONS Subjective image quality of the two intraoral sensors were comparable when evaluated by both general and oral radiologists. However, the radiologists seemed to prefer the ProSensor to the Dixi as compared to general dentists. Inter- observer conformance showed a large variation on the preference of the image quality.

[1]  R. Schulze,et al.  In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis. , 2007, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[2]  F. Esmaeili,et al.  Influence of the Display Monitor on Observer Performance in Detection of Dental Caries , 2007, Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects.

[3]  M Wakoh,et al.  Digital imaging modalities for dental practice. , 2001, The Bulletin of Tokyo Dental College.

[4]  J R Geist,et al.  Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital imaging by using CCD and CMOS-APS sensors with E-speed film in the detection of periapical bony lesions. , 2000, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[5]  M. Frydenberg,et al.  Detection of non-cavitated approximal caries lesions in digital images from seven solid-state receptors with particular focus on task-specific enhancement filters. An ex vivo study in human teeth , 2008, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[6]  P. Stelt.  Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. , 2005 .

[7]  P. F. van der Stelt.  Principles of digital imaging. , 2000 .

[8]  M. Rohlin,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: overall comparison between conventional and direct digital radiography. , 1996, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[9]  A G Farman,et al.  Fundamentals of image acquisition and processing in the digital era. , 2003, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[10]  M. Nair,et al.  A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions. , 2001, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  Mark J Kutcher,et al.  The effect of lighting conditions on caries interpretation with a laptop computer in a clinical setting. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[12]  E Alpöz,et al.  Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms. , 2007, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[13]  A. Farman,et al.  Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality. , 2003, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[14]  K. Näsström,et al.  Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[15]  G. Seward,et al.  Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation , 1982 .

[16]  M Båth,et al.  Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  A. Lith,et al.  Carious lesions: diagnostic accuracy using pre-calibrated monitor in various ambient light levels: an in vitro study. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[18]  T Sund,et al.  Sliding window adaptive histogram equalization of intraoral radiographs: effect on image quality. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[19]  D J McIlgorm,et al.  Could standardizing “commercial off-the-shelf” (COTS) monitors to the DICOM part 14: GSDF improve the presentation of dental images? A visual grading characteristics analysis , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[20]  K Horner,et al.  The imaging performance of a storage phosphor system for dental radiography. , 1996, The British journal of radiology.