Dataset Information

A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to evaluate the subjective image quality and reliability of two digital sensors. In addition, the image quality of the two sensors evaluated by specialists and general dentists were compared. METHODS:30 intraoral bitewings from five patients were included in the study, 15 were exposed with a Dixi sensor (CCD-based) and 15 with a ProSensor (CMOS-based) using modified parallel technique. Three radiologists and three general dentists evaluated the images in pair. A five-point scale was used to register the image quality. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis was performed to compare the image quality and the observer agreement was assessed in terms of intra class correlation co-efficient. RESULTS:No statistically significant difference was found on image quality between the sensors. The average scores of the observer agreement were moderate with an average of 0.66 and an interval of 0.30 to 0.87, suggesting that there was a large variation on preference of image quality. However, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of the area under the VGC- curves between the specialist group and the general dentist group ( p = 0.043), in which the specialist group tended to favor the ProSensor. CONCLUSIONS:Subjective image quality of the two intraoral sensors were comparable when evaluated by both general and oral radiologists. However, the radiologists seemed to prefer the ProSensor to the Dixi as compared to general dentists. Inter- observer conformance showed a large variation on the preference of the image quality.

SUBMITTER: Aziman C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6775787 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.

Aziman Cinar C Hellén-Halme Kristina K Shi Xie-Qi XQ

Dento maxillo facial radiology 20190514 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>The aims of this study were to evaluate the subjective image quality and reliability of two digital sensors. In addition, the image quality of the two sensors evaluated by specialists and general dentists were compared.<h4>Methods</h4>30 intraoral bitewings from five patients were included in the study, 15 were exposed with a Dixi sensor (CCD-based) and 15 with a ProSensor (CMOS-based) using modified parallel technique. Three radiologists and three general dentists evaluated t ...[more]

PMID: 31075041

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and sets new goals for dentists. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of intraoral scanning described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images created by intraoral scanner during the scanning process). METHODS:Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using a 3Shape Trios 3® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scanning device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers. Volunteer inclusion criteria included full dentition (except for missing third molars) and no prosthetic/restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by tuition consisting of both theoretical education and practical training. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning times and image numbers were recorded. RESULTS:The difference in scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p?=?0.007). The average scanning time for the first impressions was 23 min 9 s; for the tenth impressions, it was 15 min 28 s. The difference between the scanning times of the first and the tenth procedures was 7 min 41 s. The average image count for the first impressions was 1964.5; for the tenth impressions, it was 1468.6. The image count difference between the first and the tenth procedures was 495.9. The image count versus sequential number of measurement curve shows an initial decreasing tendency followed by a trough around the sixth measurement and a final increasing phase. CONCLUSION:Our results indicate an association between the sequential number of measurements and the outcome variables. The drop in scanning time is probably explained by a practice effect of repeated use, i.e. the students learned to move the scanning tip faster. The image count first showed a decreasing tendency, and after the sixth measurement, it increased; there was no consistent decline in mean scan count. Shorter scanning times are associated with poorer coverage quality, with the operator needing to make corrections by adding extra images; this manifests as the time function of image counts taking an increase after the sixth measurement.

Project description:OBJECTIVE::To evaluate the exposure parameters, radiation protection, absorbed dose and radiographic image quality of the DIOX® intraoral portable radiography device. METHODS::The exposure parameters were measured using the Xi UNFORS detector. Operator exposure to secondary radiation was measured using the 1800cc ionization chamber coupled to the electrometer. The absorbed dose (D) in the patient was calculated using TLD-100H positioned in the Alderson RANDO anthropomorphic simulator. The quality of the radiographic digital image was assessed by comparing radiographic images obtained from two conventional devices (CS 2200®, Carestream Health; Heliodent plus®, Sirona Dental Systems GMbH) with the radiological simulator of the upper molar region RMI (Radiation Measurements Instruments), using three acquisition sensors: Kodak RVG 5000® and Kodak PSP®, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY; EVO Micro Image®, Brazil. RESULTS::The DIOX intraoral portable radiographic device demonstrated reliability in relation to the performance of the standard evaluated parameters, except for the diameter of the radiation field (5.8 ?mm) less or greater. No evidence of device head radiation was detected. The Pb lead protection of the apparatus attenuates the secondary radiation, thus protecting the operator. However, it was observed that the region of the operator's gonads was the most exposed during the measurements. In the Alderson RANDO anthropomorphic simulator, the highest value of D was in the region corresponding to the submandibular and lingual glands of the left side (0.568 mGy). The image quality of the DIOX portable radiographic apparatus presented quality standards equivalent to those produced by the two conventional radiographic devices. CONCLUSION::The DIOX intraoral portable radiography device demonstrated reliability in relation to the quality control and radioprotection criteria, according to international standards. Results obtained demonstrated the safe use of the DIOX intraoral portable radiography device and indicated the need for debate and change in international sanitary oversight standards regarding the use of portable XR devices in dentistry.

Project description:ObjectivesThis comparative study aimed to evaluate intraoral digital photography (IODP) as assessment-tool for DMFT and number of implants (IMPL) compared to clinical diagnosis (CLIN) in an elderly population with high restorative status. Secondary research questions were whether an additional evaluation of panoramic radiographs (PAN-X) or raters' clinical experience influence the agreement.MethodsFifty patients (70.98±7.60 years) were enrolled for standardized CLIN and IODP. The clinical reference examiner and ten blinded raters evaluated the photographs without and with a PAN-X regarding DMFT and IMPL. CLIN were used as reference standard and differences to IODP and IODP-PAN-X findings were analysed descriptively. To assess intra-rater agreement, pairwise Gwet's AC1s of the three diagnostic methods CLIN, IODP and IODP+PAN-X were calculated.ResultsCompared to a DMFT of 22.10±3.75 (CLIN), blinded raters evaluated a DMFT of 21.54±3.40 (IODP) and 22.12±3.45 (IODP+PAN-X). Mean values for "Decayed" were 0.18±0.52 (CLIN), 0.45±0.46 (IODP) and 0.48±0.47 (IODP-PAN-X), while 11.02±5.97 (CLIN), 10.66±5.78 (IODP) and 10.93±5.91 (IODP+PAN-X) were determined for "Missing" and 10.90±5.61 (CLIN), 10.43±4.85 (IODP) and 10.71±5.11 (IODP+PAN-X) for "Filled". IMPL were 0.78±2.04 (CLIN), 0.58±1.43 (IODP), 0.78±2.04 (IODP+PAN-X). Gwet's AC1 using the mode of the blinded raters' assessment of "Decayed", "Missing" and IMPL compared to CLIN ranged from 0.81 to 0.89 (IODP) and 0.87 to 1.00 (IODP+PAN-X), while for "Filled" and DMFT they were 0.29 and 0.36 (IODP) as well as 0.33 and 0.36 (IODP+PAN-X), respectively. Clinical experience did not influence the agreement.ConclusionsAssessment of "Decayed", "Missing" and IMPL by IODP showed almost perfect agreement, whereas of "Filled" and DMFT revealed fair to moderate agreement with clinical findings. Additional PAN-X-evaluation increased agreement compared to IODP-diagnostics alone. IODP for the assessment of DMFT and IMPL might be a suitable method in large-scale epidemiological studies, considering high agreement in total values and miscellaneous agreement at patient-level.

Project description:BackgroundThe progressive evolution in hip replacement research is directed to follow the principles of bone and soft tissue sparing surgery. Regarding hip implants, a renewed interest has been raised towards short uncemented femoral implants. A heterogeneous group of short stems have been designed with the aim to approximate initial, post-implantation bone strain to the preoperative levels in order to minimize the effects of stress shielding. This study aims to investigate the biomechanical properties of two distinctly designed femoral implants, the TRI-LOCK Bone Preservation Stem, a shortened conventional stem and the Minima S Femoral Stem, an even shorter and anatomically shaped stem, based on experiments and numerical simulations. Furthermore, finite element models of implant-bone constructs should be evaluated for their validity against mechanical tests wherever it is possible. In this work, the validation was performed via a direct comparison of the FE calculated strain fields with their experimental equivalents obtained using the digital image correlation technique.ResultsDesign differences between Trilock BPS and Minima S femoral stems conditioned different strain pattern distributions. A distally shifting load distribution pattern as a result of implant insertion and also an obvious decrease of strain in the medial proximal aspect of the femur was noted for both stems. Strain changes induced after the implantation of the Trilock BPS stem at the lateral surface were greater compared to the non-implanted femur response, as opposed to those exhibited by the Minima S stem. Linear correlation analyses revealed a reasonable agreement between the numerical and experimental data in the majority of cases.ConclusionThe study findings support the use of DIC technique as a preclinical evaluation tool of the biomechanical behavior induced by different implants and also identify its potential for experimental FE model validation. Furthermore, a proximal stress-shielding effect was noted after the implantation of both short-stem designs. Design-specific variations in short stems were sufficient to produce dissimilar biomechanical behaviors, although their clinical implication must be investigated through comparative clinical studies.

Project description:ObjectivesTo study how radiologists' perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality.MethodsOne view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared.ResultsRadiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001).ConclusionsPerceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases.Key points• Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists' perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems.

Project description:The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings-high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson's correlation, and Dunnett's T3 test (? = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (? < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 ?m, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 ?m, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 ?m). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

Dataset Information

A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.

Publications

A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets