Quality assessment of digital images produced using handheld X-ray equipment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i10.28291Keywords:
Teaching; X-ray image; Quality control; Biocompatible materials; Radiography; Signal-to-noise ratio.Abstract
This study aimed at the assessment and monitoring of digital image quality parameters resulting from the use of portable X-ray equipment in clinical examinations. A multicentric study was conducted for quality assessment of images produced using the portable NOMAD® with the DIGORA® ™ Optime UV computed radiography (CR) system. The digital image quality was evaluated in terms of high- and low-contrast spatial resolution, contrast noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The samples comprised six biomaterials: zirconia (Zr), lyophilized bone (LB), photopolymerizable restorative resin (PRR), glass ionomer cement (GIC), GIC photopolymerizable (GICP), and double adhesive resin cement (DARC). The DICOM image (processed pixels) and raw data (without processing) were quantitatively analyzed. The qualitative visual analysis was performed in an adequately illuminated environment and then repeated in an environment equivalent to that of a clinical practice using conventional monitoring equipment. The relative biomaterial contrast was normalized by the high-contrast result of Zr. The Zr image demonstrated no noise because the standard deviation of the digital image biomaterial pixel mean was zero. In contrast, the relative SNR of the biomaterials was normalized by the DARC result. The relative CNR values according to different aluminum thicknesses were 0.11 for LB and 0.3–0.35 for PRR, GIC, and GICP. The spatial resolution was identical for both high-resolution and conventional monitors; however, for a 0.2-s clinical exposure, the resolution produced by the high-quality monitor increased. The quality control tests indicated the compatibility of the CR system-assisted portable X-ray equipment, verifying the status and image quality.
References
Abdinian, M., Yaghini, J., & Jazi, L. (2020). Comparison of intraoral digital radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in the measurement of periodontal bone defects. Dental and Medical Problems, 57(3), 269–273.
Alves, W. A., Camelo, C. A. C., Guaré, R. O., Costa, C. H. M., & Almeida, M. S. C. (2016). Proteção radiológica: conhecimento e métodos dos cirurgiões-dentistas [Radiological protection: knowledge and methods of dentists]. Arquivos em Odontologia, 52, 130–135.
Buchanan, A., Benton, B., Carraway, A., Looney, S., & Kalathingal, S. (2017). Perception versus reality—findings from a phosphor plate quality assurance study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, 123, 496–501.
Christiaens, V., De Bruyn, H., Thevissen, E., Koole, S., Dierens, M., & Cosyn, J. (2018). Assessment of periodontal bone level revisited: a controlled study on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical evaluation methods and intra-oral radiography. Clinical Oral Investigations, 22(1), 425–431.
Cruz, A. D., Lobo, I. C., Lemos, A. L., & Aguiar, M. F. (2014). Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiology, 44, 1–7.
Don, S., Whiting, B. R., Rutz, L. J., Apgar, B. K. (2012). New exposure indicators for digital radiography simplified for radiologists and technologists. American Journal of Roentgenology, 199, 1337–1341.
Hellén-Halme, K., Johansson, C., & Nilsson, M. (2016). Comparison of the performance of intraoral X-ray sensors using objective image quality assessment. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, 121, e129–e137.
Hyer, J.C., Deas, D.E., Palaiologou, A.A., Noujeim, M.E., Mader, M.J., & Mealey, B.L. (2012). Accuracy of dental calculus detection using digital radiography and image manipulation. Journal of Periodontology, 92(3), 419–427.
Joly, J. C., Palioto, D. B., de Lima, A. F., Mota, L. F., & Caffesse, R. (2002). Clinical and radiographic evaluation of periodontal intrabony defects treated with guided tissue regeneration. A pilot study. Journal of Periodontology, 73(4), 353–359.
Krupinski, E. A. (2016). Diagnostic accuracy and visual search efficiency: Single 8 MP vs. Dual 5 MP displays. Journal of Digital Imaging, 30, 144–147.
Langen, H. V., & Castelijn, T. (2009). Durability of imaging plates in clinical use. Physica Medica, 25, 207–211.
Mah, P., McDavid, W. D., & Dove, S. B. (2011). Quality assurance phantom for digital dental imaging. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, 112, 632–639.
Nejaim, Y., Gomes, F., Silva, E. J., Groppo, F. C., & Neto, F. H. (2016). The influence of number of line pairs in digital intra-oral radiography on the detection accuracy of horizontal root fractures. Dental Traumatology, 32, 180–184.
Nóbrega, N. F. S., Puchnick, A., Cerqueira, L. K. M., Costa, C., & Ajzen, S. (2012). In vitro study on radiographic gray levels of biomaterials using two digital image methods. Revista Odonto Ciencia, 27, 218–222.
Oberhofer, N., Compagnone, G., & Moroder, E. (2009). Use of CNR as a metric for optimisation in digital radiology. IFMBE Proceedings, 25, 296–299.
Restrepo-Restrepo, F. A., Cañas-Jiménez, S. J., Romero-Albarracín, R. D., Villa-Machado, P.A., Pérez-Cano, M.I., & Tobón-Arroyave, S.I. (2019). Prognosis of root canal treatment in teeth with preoperative apical periodontitis: a study with cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography. International Endodontic Journal, 52(11), 1533–1546.
Vandenberghe, B., Bosmans, H., Yang, J., & Jacobs, R. (2011). A comprehensive in vitro study of image accuracy and quality for periodontal diagnosis. Part 2: the influence of intra-oral image receptor on periodontal measurements. Clinical Oral Investigation, 15(4), 551–562.
Vandenberghe, B., Corpas, L., Bosmans, H., Yang, J., & Jacobs, R. (2011). A comprehensive in vitro study of image accuracy and quality for periodontal diagnosis. Part 1: the influence of X-ray generator on periodontal measurements using conventional and digital receptors. Clinical Oral Investigations, 15(4), 537–549.
Williams, M. B., Krupinski, E. A., Strauss, K. J., Breeden, W. K. 3rd, Rzeszotarski, M. S., Applegate, K, et al. (2007). Digital radiography image quality: Image acquisition. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 4, 371–388.
Wrigley, R. H. (2005). Computed radiology. Clinical Techniques in Equine Practice, 3, 341–335.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Newton F. S. Nóbrega; Kellen A. C. Daros; Erica M. Policarpo; Camila H. Murata; Andrea Puchnick; Cláudio Costa; Sergio A. Ajzen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
