Impact of scale standardization on images of digital radiography systems.

OBJECTIVES To test the effect of altering image size on diagnostic quality. METHODS Endodontic files, size 10 and 15 were prepared to full root length and 1.5 mm short, in upper and lower molars and premolars. Digital images of the Sidexis (S) and Visualix/Vixa (V) system were reduced in size to Digora (D) scale, and the D images were enlarged to S scale. ROC analysis was performed and data analysed with MANOVA statistics. RESULTS Assessment of root canal length with file size 10 was less accurate for the S images reduced in size, compared with the original S images (P < 0.011). All other differences were not significant (P > 0.081). CONCLUSIONS Relevant diagnostic information may be lost when images are reduced in size. Therefore, for optimal presentation, the smaller images should be enlarged rather than the larger ones reduced.

[1]  R L Galloway,et al.  Comparison of projection algorithms used for the construction of maximum intensity projection images. , 1996, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[2]  G C Sanderink,et al.  Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films. , 1994, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[3]  L. Hollender,et al.  Radiovisiography versus conventional radiography for detection of small instruments in endodontic length determination. Part 1. In vitro evaluation. , 1995, Journal of endodontics.

[4]  H G Gröndahl,et al.  Intraoral storage phosphor radiography for approximal caries detection and effect of image magnification: comparison with conventional radiography. , 1996, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[5]  G C Sanderink,et al.  Estimating distances on direct digital images and conventional radiographs. , 1997, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[6]  A G Farman,et al.  Radiographic detection of accessory/lateral canals: use of RadioVisioGraphy and Hypaque. , 1995, Journal of endodontics.

[7]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[8]  R. Keys.  Cubic convolution interpolation for digital image processing , 1981 .

[9]  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.

[10]  C. Metz,et al.  A New Approach for Testing the Significance of Differences Between ROC Curves Measured from Correlated Data , 1984 .

[11]  C E Metz,et al.  Quantification of failure to demonstrate statistical significance. The usefulness of confidence intervals. , 1993, Investigative radiology.

[12]  Microdensitometric and visual evaluation of the resolution of dental films. , 1978, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[13]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[14]  J. A. Parker,et al.  Comparison of Interpolating Methods for Image Resampling , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Wayne Niblack,et al.  An introduction to digital image processing , 1986 .