Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 28, Issue 4 203-207, Copyright © 1999 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance

R. A. Cederberg, N. L. Frederiksen, B. W. Benson and J. D. Shulman
Baylor College of Dentistry/Texas A&M University System, Dallas 75266-0677, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of the display monitor on observer performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Artificial enamel lesions were created in 40 extracted teeth at random using 1/4 and 1/2 round burs. Teeth were mounted in dental stone blocks to simulate a hemidentition. Approximate exposures were recorded at 70 kVp using a Digota (Soredex, Orion Corp, Helsinki, Finland) digital imaging system, calibrated to achieve optimum density. Six dentists rated each image on a five-point scale for the presence or absence of a lesion. Radiographic images were viewed on the following monitors: (1) AlphaScan 711 (Sampo Corp.); (2) Multiscan 17 Se II (Sony Electronics Inc.); (3) DS 2000 (Clinton Electronics Corp.) and (4) Latitude CP Laptop (Dell Computer Corp.). Raters were allowed to magnify and to adjust density and contrast of each image at will. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and curves were plotted for each image. Data was subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance and ordinal logistic regression to test for significance between variables and to determine odds ratios. RESULTS: Mean ROC curve areas ranged from 0.8728 for the Sampo monitor to 0.8395 for the Sony. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed significant differences between observers (P < 0.0001), lesion size (P < 0.0001), examiner/monitor interaction (P < 0.033) and examiner/block interaction (P < 0.013). However, no significant difference was found between monitors. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that observer performance is independent of the visual characteristics of the display monitor.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K Hellen-Halme, M Nilsson, and A Petersson Digital radiography in general dental practice: a field study Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 36(5): 249 - 255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				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]

				R Goga, N. Chandler, and R. Love Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2004; 33(2): 103 - 107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Kunzel, D Scherkowski, R Willers, and J Becker Visually detectable resolution of intraoral dental films Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2003; 32(6): 385 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]