Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 6 intraoral direct digital sensors. The sensors were Visualix 1, Visualix 2, DenOptix, Computed Dental Radiography (CDR), CDR APS, and Digora. STUDY DESIGN The sensors were exposed by using a dental x-ray machine operating at 50 kV, 8 mA and various exposure times. The phantom used was a hole measuring 1 mm in diameter and 1.25 mm in depth, drilled in a 10-mm-thick aluminum block. Digital images were transferred as 8-bit tagged image file format files and analyzed by using a personal computer. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS SNR values increased up to a maximum value at a certain exposure level and then, depending on the system, either decreased or maintained a high level with increased exposure. The Digora system produced the highest SNR values over a large exposure range, whereas the Visualix 2 and DenOptix systems produced the lowest SNR values. The 2 CDR sensors produced rather high SNRs but over a very small exposure range.

[1]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography. , 2000, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[2]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Assessments of the physical performance of 2 generations of 2 direct digital intraoral sensors. , 1999, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[3]  Y Hayakawa,et al.  Intraoral radiographic storage phosphor image mean pixel values and signal-to-noise ratio: effects of calibration. , 1998, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[4]  M. Jourlin,et al.  Criteria for the assessment of intrinsic performances of digital radiographic intraoral sensors. , 1996, Academic Radiology.

[5]  H. Gröndahl,et al.  On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. , 1996, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[6]  I. Kashima.  Computed radiography with photostimulable phosphor in oral and maxillofacial radiology. , 1995, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[7]  W. McDavid,et al.  Absolute measures of image quality for the Sens-A-Ray direct digital intraoral radiography system. , 1995, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[8]  Y. Hayakawa,et al.  Sens-A-Ray characteristics with variations in beam quality. , 1995, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[9]  A G Farman,et al.  Computed dental radiography: evaluation of a new charge-coupled device-based intraoral radiographic system. , 1995, Quintessence international.

[10]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  SNR and DQE analysis of broad spectrum X-ray imaging , 1985 .

[11]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems , 1985, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Image plate systems differ in physical performance. , 2000, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[13]  W. McDavid,et al.  Physical evaluation of a system for direct digital intra-oral radiography based on a charge-coupled device. , 1999, Dento maxillo facial radiology.