DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Versteeg, C. H.
Right arrow Articles by van der Stelt, P. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Versteeg, C. H.
Right arrow Articles by van der Stelt, P. F.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 27, Issue 2 93-96, Copyright © 1998 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Reduction in size of digital images: does it lead to less detectability or loss of diagnostic information?

C. H. Versteeg, G. C. Sanderink, S. R. Lobach and P. F. van der Stelt
Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effect of reduction in size of digital images on diagnostic outcome. METHODS: A series of 100 Visualix III (Gendex Dental Systems, Milano, Italy; Dentsply, Des Plaines, IL, USA) images was made of size 10 and 15 endodontic files in upper and lower (pre)molars. Three forms of image were created: (a) the original images, (b) reduced to one-half (containing one-quarter of the information of the original, and (c) zoomed-in, half-size images (magnification 2:1; original image size but with only one-quarter of the original information). Seven radiologists were asked to rate the position of the tip of the file, using a five-point confidence scale. ROC data were analysed by means of MANOVA statistics. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between the three image modalities for both size 10 (P < 0.005), and size 15 (P < 0.021) files. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in size of digital images may cause less detectability as well as loss of diagnostic information.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
J. de Morais, C. Sakakura, L. Loffredo, and G Scaf
Accuracy of zoomed digital image in the detection of periodontal bone defect: in vitro study.
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2006; 35(3): 139 - 142.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
A Fidler, B Likar, and U Skaleric
Lossy JPEG compression: easy to compress, hard to compare.
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 35(2): 67 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
L. L. OTIS and R. G. SHERMAN
Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph: Film versus print
J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2005; 136(3): 323 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
W. Berkhout, D. Beuger, G. Sanderink, and P. van der Stelt
The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure?
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2004; 33(1): 1 - 5.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
R Haak, M. Wicht, G Nowak, and M Hellmich
Influence of displayed image size on radiographic detection of approximal caries
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2003; 32(4): 242 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1998 by the British Institute of Radiology.