Visually detectable resolution of intraoral dental films.

OBJECTIVES The visually utilizable resolution of intraoral dental films was examined with the naked eye, with two-fold optical magnification and after digitization using a computer display. METHODS Agfa Dentus M2, Kodak Ektaspeed Plus and Kodak InSight dental films were exposed with a line pair (lp) test pattern providing frequencies up to 16.6 lp mm(-1). Films were developed at 24 degrees C in a Dürr Periomat machine and at 28 degrees C in a Dürr AC245 machine. Forty dental students evaluated the maximum visually detectable resolution with their naked eye, with an X-ray viewer (providing two-fold magnifying lenses and eliminating disturbing light) and following digitization and monitor display examination. RESULTS The best detectable resolution was achieved through digitization, reaching a mean of up to 16.5 lp mm(-1). With two-fold magnification, a mean of up to 13.3 lp mm(-1) could be resolved, while only 11.7 lp mm(-1)could be resolved with the naked eye. Unlike the other film types, the resolution of Ektaspeed depended on the processing type when viewing digitized images or when viewing with the naked eye. There was a trend for students above 29 years of age to detect a lower resolution with the naked eye, although they performed comparably with students below 29 years when using the X-ray viewer or viewing digitized images. CONCLUSIONS Film resolution is utilized best through digitization and secondly using a magnifying lens. With the naked eye, a mean of 11 lp mm(-1) with a broad distribution can be resolved. A magnifying lens is recommended if resolution is important or if the viewer's eyesight is reduced. Compared with E-speed films, Kodak Insight was less dependent on processing conditions.

[1]  T. Macfarlane,et al.  Radiology: The influence of viewing conditions on radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation , 2000, British Dental Journal.

[2]  R A Cederberg,et al.  Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. , 1998, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[3]  N L Frederiksen,et al.  Diagnostic imaging in dental implantology. , 1995, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[4]  P. van der Stelt,et al.  Sensitometric and clinical evaluation of a new F-speed dental X-ray film. , 2001, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  A. Farman,et al.  A comparison of D-, E-, and F-speed conventional intraoral radiographic films in endodontic measurement. , 2002, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[6]  M W Vannier,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of digital dental radiograph imaging systems. , 1990, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[7]  J B Ludlow,et al.  Performance of film, desktop monitor and laptop displays in caries detection. , 1999, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[8]  J. Ludlow,et al.  Image-receptor performance: a comparison of Trophy RVG UI sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film. , 2001, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[9]  A. Farman,et al.  Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films. , 2000, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[10]  R A Cederberg,et al.  Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. , 1999, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[11]  L. Manson-Hing,et al.  A study of the resolution of dental films and screens. , 1976, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[12]  M W Vannier,et al.  35-mm film scanner as an intraoral dental radiograph digitizer. I: A quantitative evaluation. , 1993, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[13]  O.-J. Grüsser,et al.  Gesichtssinn und Oculomotorik , 1985 .

[14]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  The effect of cathode ray tube display format on observer performance in dental digitized radiography: comparison with plain films. , 1994, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[15]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Digitisation and display of intra-oral films. , 2000, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[16]  H. Gröndahl,et al.  Effect of image magnification of digitized bitewing radiographs on approximal caries detection: an in vitro study. , 1995, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[17]  F. V. Van Ginkel,et al.  Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries. , 2001, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[18]  C. Price.  Sensitometric evaluation of a new F-speed dental radiographic film. , 1995, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[19]  I. Espelid.  The influence of viewing conditions on observer performance in dental radiology. , 1987, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[20]  J. Ludlow,et al.  Characteristics of Kodak Insight, an F-speed intraoral film. , 2001, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[21]  J B Ludlow,et al.  Detection of caries with conventional digital imaging and tuned aperture computed tomography using CRT monitor and laptop displays. , 1999, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[22]  M. Abreu,et al.  Performance of a new F-speed film for caries detection. , 2001, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[23]  K Kuroyanagi,et al.  Comparison of three intra-oral storage phosphor systems using subjective image quality. , 2000, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[24]  J. Brand,et al.  Sensitometric comparison of speed group E and F dental radiographic films. , 2001, Dento maxillo facial radiology.