This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Haiter-Neto, F Articles by Wenzel, A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Haiter-Neto, F Articles by Wenzel, A

Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of bitewing radiographs: a comparison between two subtraction programs

¹ Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Brazil; ² Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, University of Aarhus, Denmark

*Correspondence to: Francisco Haiter-Neto, Piracicaba Dental School/State University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Avenue, Bairro Areião, Piracicaba–SP–Brazil, Zip Code: 13.414-903; E-mail: haiter{at}fop.unicamp.br

Received 22 March 2005; revised 26 May 2005; accepted 9 July 2005

Objectives: To compare noise in subtraction images produced by two subtraction programs.

Methods: Twenty-five pairs of bitewing radiographs exposed under clinical conditions were subtracted using two digital subtraction programs: X-PoseIt (XP) software and EMAGO^®/Advanced 3.43 (EM) software. Four reference points were located between the mesial surface of the upper first premolar and the distal surface of the upper first molar (the region of interest) on the same anatomical structures using XP and EM. The standard deviation (SD) of the histogram defining the distribution of the shades of grey in the region of interest was used as the statistical parameter for comparing noise in the subtraction images created by the two subtraction programs.

Results: The mean and median grey shade value was lower with EM software (126.9, 126) than with XP software (128.3, 128) (P < 0.05). For the SD, the mean value was significantly lower with XP (6.2) than with EM (7.8) (P < 0.05). The range of the SD values was larger for EM (3.6–12.8) than XP (3.3–9.9).

Conclusions: The standard deviation of the grey shade histogram showed that subtraction images produced with X-PoseIt software were statistically less noisy than images produced with EMAGO^®/Advanced 3.43 software.

Keywords: radiography; dental; digital;; radiographic; image interpretation; computer assisted;; subtraction technique

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M Kozakiewicz, K Bogusiak, M Hanclik, M Denkowski, and P Arkuszewski Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of intraoral radiographs: a comparison between four methods of geometric alignment Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2008; 37(1): 40 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Guneri, S Gogus, Z Tugsel, and H Boyacioglu Efficacy of a new software in eliminating the angulation errors in digital subtraction radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 36(8): 484 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Guneri, S Gogus, Z Tugsel, A Ozturk, C Gungor, and H Boyacioglu Clinical efficacy of a new software developed for dental digital subtraction radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2006; 35(6): 417 - 421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]