DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Golubow, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Golubow, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, M. S.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 23, Issue 2 91-96, Copyright © 1994 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Direct digital radiography for the detection of defects in a standard aluminium test object through composite resin restorative materials

N. A. Golubow, A. G. Farman, J. A. von Fraunhofer and M. S. Kelly
Health Sciences Center, University of Louisville, Kentucky.

While the RVG 32000 (Trophy Radiologie, Vincennes, France) is in wide use for direct digital intraoral radiography in dentistry, there is a dearth of information in the literature concerning the system's sensitivity to small changes in radiographic density consistent with initial and recurrent dental caries. A standardized 7 mm aluminium test block was used as a phantom for perceptibility testing of density changes, both with and without the superimposition of composite resin sheets of various thicknesses. Defects in the block were randomly positioned and varied from 0.1 to 1.5 mm. Thermal prints were used for evaluation. Standard linear images, with no enhancement, were compared with three enhanced modes, standard mode with gradient enhancement (enhanced standard), standard X-function and zoom high resolution (ZHR). Sensitivity improved in the following sequence: standard 0.58 < enhanced standard 0.75 < X-function 0.94 < ZHR 0.95. Accuracy improved in the following sequence: standard 0.45 < enhanced standard 0.58 < X-function 0.73 < ZHR 0.74. Specificity was 1.0 both for X-function and for ZHR. These two modes both proved significantly better (P < 0.05) for the detection of 0.1 mm defects than the other two modes tested. No significant difference was found between X-function and ZHR. As ZHR requires four times the radiation exposure as standard exposures with the X-function, the latter is preferred for the task described in this study.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
K Yoshiura, E Nakayama, M Shimizu, T. Goto, T Chikui, T Kawazu, and K Okamura
Effects of the automatic exposure compensation on the proximal caries diagnosis
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2005; 34(3): 140 - 144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1994 by the British Institute of Radiology.