Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2000 Mar;29(2):70-5.
doi: 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600501.

Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography

E Borg et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare subjectively the image quality of intra-oral radiographs from six digital systems.

Methods: Two generations of two different solid-state detectors; Visualix-1 and -2 (Gendex Dental Systems, Milan, Italy), Computed Dental Radiography (CDR) and CDR Active Pixel Sensor (APS) (Schick Technologies Inc., Long Island City, NY, USA), and two photostimulable phosphor (PSP) systems; Digora (Soredex, Orion Corporation, Helsinki, Finland) and DenOptix (Gendex Dental Systems, Milan, Italy) were compared. Tooth-containing specimens from different areas of dried mandibles were radiographed at exposures between 91-9400 microGy. Images were transferred to a personal computer, displayed in random order and evaluated in their original form and after applying a histogram equalisation algorithm. Eight observers graded subjective image quality using a 5-point scale.

Results: Both CDR systems scored highest for image quality but within the narrowest exposure range. The Visualix images received the lowest scores. The PSP systems produced acceptable image quality at both lower and higher exposures than the solid-state systems. Enhanced images were generally considered to be inferior to the original images, except for those produced by the four solid-state systems at very low exposures.

Conclusions: (i) the PSP systems provided a clinically acceptable image quality over a wide exposure range; (ii) the CDR systems had the best image quality but over the narrowest exposure ranges; (iii) the Visualix systems had the lowest image quality; and (iv) histogram equalisation did not generally improve image quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources