Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effects of noise reduction, sharpening, enhancement, and image magnification on diagnostic accuracy of a photostimulable phosphor system in the detection of non-cavitated approximal dental caries

  • Kajan, Zahra Dalili (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Davalloo, Reza Tayefeh (Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Tavangar, Mayam (Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Valizade, Fatemeh (Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2015.01.09
  • Accepted : 2015.04.04
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Contrast, sharpness, enhancement, and density can be changed in digital systems. The important question is to what extent the changes in these variables affect the accuracy of caries detection. Materials and Methods: Forty eight extracted human posterior teeth with healthy or proximal caries surfaces were imaged using a photostimulable phosphor (PSP) sensor. All original images were processed using a six-step method: (1) applying "Sharpening 2" and "Noise Reduction" processing options to the original images; (2) applying the "Magnification 1:3" option to the image obtained in the first step; (3) enhancing the original images by using the "Diagonal/"option; (4) reviewing the changes brought about by the third step of image processing and then, applying "Magnification 1:3"; (5) applying "Sharpening UM" to the original images; and (6) analyzing the changes brought about by the fifth step of image processing, and finally, applying "Magnification 1:3." Three observers evaluated the images. The tooth sections were evaluated histologically as the gold standard. The diagnostic accuracy of the observers was compared using a chi-squared test. Results: The accuracy levels irrespective of the image processing method ranged from weak (18.8%) to intermediate (54.2%), but the highest accuracy was achieved at the sixth image processing step. The overall diagnostic accuracy level showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0001). Conclusion: This study shows that the application of "Sharpening UM" along with the "Magnification 1:3" processing option improved the diagnostic accuracy and the observer agreement more effectively than the other processing procedures.

Keywords

References

  1. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology; principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 41.
  2. Wenzel A, Borg E, Hintze H, Grondahl HG. Accuracy of caries diagnosis in digital images from charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems: an in-vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24: 250-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.24.4.9161170
  3. Svanaes DB, Moystad A, Risnes S, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. Intraoral storage phosphor radiography for approximal caries detection and effect of image magnification: comparison with conventional radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 82: 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80385-4
  4. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Risnes S, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 202-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.25.4.9084274
  5. Shrout MK, Russell CM, Potter BJ, Powell BJ, Hildebolt CF. Digital enhancement of radiographs: can it improve caries diagnosis? J Am Dent Assoc 1996; 127: 469-73. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0238
  6. Svanaes DB, Moystad A, Larheim TA. Approximal caries depth assessment with storage phosphor versus film radiography. Evaluation of the caries-specific Oslo enhancement procedure. Caries Res 2000; 34: 448-53. https://doi.org/10.1159/000016622
  7. Li G, Yoshiura K, Welander U, Shi XQ, McDavid WD. Detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and visual response. An in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 113-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600675
  8. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Nowak G, Hellmich M. Influence of displayed image size on radiographic detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 242-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/17654484
  9. de Paola PF, Alman J. Assessment of the reliability of radiographic diagnosis in a clinical caries trial. J Dent Res 1972; 51: 1431-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345720510053001
  10. Crawley DA, Longbottom C, Cole BE, Ciesla CM, Arnone D, Wallace VP, et al. Terahertz pulse imaging: a pilot study of potential applications in dentistry. Caries Res 2003; 37: 352-9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000072167
  11. Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Stachniss V, Wellnitz J, Schulte AG. Detection of cavitated or non-cavitated approximal enamel caries lesions using CMOS and CCD digital X-ray sensors and conventional D and F-speed films at different exposure conditions. Am J Dent 2011; 24: 74-8.
  12. Behere RR, Lele SM. Reliability of Logicon caries detector in the detection and depth assessment of dental caries: an in-vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2011; 22: 362.
  13. Syriopoulos K, Sanderink GC, Velders XL, van der Stelt PF. Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 312-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600553
  14. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Larsen MJ. Stereomicroscopy, film radiography, microradiography and naked-eye inspection of tooth sections as validation for occlusal caries diagnosis. Caries Res 1995; 29: 359-63. https://doi.org/10.1159/000262093
  15. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology; principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 288.
  16. Abesi F, Mirshekar A, Moudi E, Seyedmajidi M, Haghanifar S, Haghighat N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the detection of non-cavitated approximal dental caries. Iran J Radiol 2012; 9: 17-21. https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.6747
  17. Seneadza V, Koob A, Kaltschmitt J, Staehle HJ, Duwenhoegger J, Eickholz P. Digital enhancement of radiographs for assessment of interproximal dental caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 142-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/51572889
  18. Yoshiura K. Image quality assessment of digital intraoral radiography - perception to caries diagnosis. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2012; 48: 42-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2011.09.001
  19. Naitoh M, Yuasa H, Toyama M, Shiojima M, Nakamura M, Ushida M, et al. Observer agreement in the detection of proximal caries with direct digital intraoral radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85: 107-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90407-3

Cited by

  1. Influence of brightness and contrast adjustments on the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions vol.47, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180100
  2. Automatic exposure compensation and subjective image enhancement in the radiographic diagnosis of caries vol.34, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0082
  3. Radiographic modalities for diagnosis of caries in a historical perspective: from film to machine-intelligence supported systems vol.50, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210010