Comparison of Different Medical Image Processing Techniques on Perception of Anatomical Structures and Overall Image Quality in Direct Digital Panoramic Radiographs

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objective: Recently, most digital imaging systems provide the option of image post-processing with different techniques. This clinical study aims to compare these techniques on perception of anatomical structures and overall image quality in direct digital panoramic radiographs.
Subjects and Methods: Panoramic radiographs were acquired from 45 patients. The original and the processed images using shadow, sharpen, sigmoidal or exponential, Negative and 3D embossed filters were assessed by 4 observers and scored for perception of the floor of maxillary sinus, dentino enamel junction, root canal space, periodontal ligament space, inferior mandibular cortex, bone trabecular pattern, inferior alveolar canal and overall image quality. The results were statistically analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon tests.
Results: The best diagnostic quality in all anatomical structures and overall image quality was obtained using sharpen processing method. The negative filter earned the second place in floor of maxillary sinus, dentine -enamel junction and root canal space. The original images provided the second best diagnostic quality in periodontal ligament space, inferior mandibular cortex, bone trabecular pattern, inferior alveolar canal and overall image quality.
Conclusions: To perceive the anatomical structures and overall image quality the sharpened image processing method is recommended. It should be noted that the processing techniques should be chosen carefully considering the anatomical structure that is being studied

Keywords

References

1-Wenzel A, Moystad A. Experience of Norwegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors. Dentomaxillofac Radiol  2001 Jul; 30(4): 203-8.
2-Gijbels F, De Meyer AM, Bou Serhal C, Van den Bossche C, Declerck J, Persoons M, ‘et al’. The overall image quality of direct digital and conventional panoramic radiography. Clin Oral Investig 2000 Sep; 4(3): 162-7.
3-Molander B, Grondahl HG, Ekestubbe A. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004 Jan; 33(1): 32-6.
4-Akarslan ZZ, Akdevelioglu M, Gungor K, Erten H. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of bitewing, periapical, unfiltered and filtered digital panoramic images for approximal caries detection in posterior teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol  2008 Dec; 37(8): 458-63.
5-Baksi BG, Alpoz E, Sogur E, Mert A. Perception of anatomical structures in digitally filtered and conventional panoramic radiographs: a clinical evaluation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010 Oct; 39(7): 424-30.
6-White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2009. P. 78-99.
7-Angelopoulos C, Bedard A, Katz JO, Karamanis S, Parissis N. Digital panoramic  radiography: An  overview.  Semin Orthod 2004; 10: 194–203.
8-Weisemann R, Scheetz J, Silveira A, Farman T, Farman A. Effect of Pixel Histogram Distribution on Perceived Anatomical Landmark Clarity of Photostimulable Phosphor Cephalograms. Int J CARS 2006; 1(2): 97-103.
9-Analoui M. Radiographic image enhancement: Part I: spatial domain techniques. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 1–9.
10-Lehmann TM, Troeltschl E and Spitzerl K. Image processing and enhancement provided by commercial dental software programs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2002; 31: 264 – 272.
11-Wenzel A, Hintze H. Perception of image quality in direct digital radiography after application of various image treatment filters for detectability of dental disease. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1993 Aug;22(3):131-4.
12-Yalcinkaya S, Kunzel A, Willers R, Thoms M, Becker J. Overall image quality of digitally filtered radiographs acquired by the Durr Vistascan system compared with conventional radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod  2006 May; 101(5): 643-51.
13-Prokop M, Schafer-Prokop CM. Storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 58–65.
14-Bonciu C, Razaee MR, Edwards W. Enhanced visualization methods for computed radiography images. J Digit Imaging 2006; 19: 187–196.
15-Davidson RA. Radiographic contrast-enhancement masks in digital radiography. PhD Doctorate Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia, 2006.
16-Prokop M, Schafer-Prokop CM. Digital image processing. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 73–82.
17-Ramesh A, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB. Evaluation of a new digital panoramic system: a comparison with film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 98–100.
Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal
Volume 13, Issue 4 - Serial Number 91
July and August 2014
Pages 376-387

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 November 2013
  • Accept Date: 14 May 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics