Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 30, Issue 3 166-171, Copyright © 2001 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries

A. Janhom, F. C. van Ginkel, J. P. van Amerongen and P. F. van der Stelt
Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To determine a proper scanning resolution for digitizing bitewing radiographs in the detection of approximal caries. METHODS: Fifty-two premolars and 48 molars were mounted in blocks and imaged on conventional film (Ektaspeed Plus, Eastman-Kodak, Rochester, NY USA) simulating a bitewing projection. The 15 bitewing radiographs were then scanned with a flatbed scanner at three resolutions 150, 300 and 600 d.p.i. The digitized images were displayed in random order on a high-resolution cathode ray tube monitor. Ten observers assessed the caries status of 200 approximal surfaces. They scored lesion presence on a 5-point confidence scale and depth on a 3-point scale. The observer's scores were compared with the results from a histological examination. Data were analysed using analysis of variance, by calculating signed observer error, absolute observer error and observer confidence. RESULTS: Lesion depth had a significant effect on confidence of lesion recognition. The main effect of resolution and the interaction between resolution and lesion depth were significant. Pair-wise comparison showed a significant difference between resolutions in case of sound surfaces and surfaces with dentinal lesions for absolute error. The confidence increased as the resolution increased but no significant difference was found between 300 and 600 d.p.i. The best score for depth estimation was obtained at the 300 d.p.i. scanning resolution. CONCLUSIONS: When bitewing radiographs are scanned with a flatbed scanner, a resolution of 300 d.p.i. seems the best choice. At this resolution the digital file size is manageable without significant loss of the information necessary for caries diagnosis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Berkhout, J. Verheij, K Syriopoulos, G Li, G. Sanderink, and P. van der Stelt Detection of proximal caries with high-resolution and standard resolution digital radiographic systems Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2007; 36(4): 204 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Prapayasatok, A Janhom, K Verochana, and S Pramojanee Digital camera resolution and proximal caries detection. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2006; 35(4): 253 - 257. [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]

				N Parissis, A Kondylidou-Sidira, A Tsirlis, and P Patias Conventional radiographs vs digitized radiographs: image quality assessment Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2005; 34(6): 353 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. van Daatselaar, D. Tyndall, H Verheij, and P. van der Stelt Minimum number of basis projections for caries detection with local CT Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2004; 33(6): 355 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Digitized conventional radiograph Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2004; 33(6): 420 - 421. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. SPALLEK A resource guide for practice development through technology J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2004; 135(suppl_1): 38S - 44S. [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]