Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between embossed digital imaging and unprocessed film-based radiography in detecting periodontal bone defects: an in vitro study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Our aim was to compare bone-loss measurements between embossed digital radiographic imaging and unprocessed film-based radiography.

Methods

Forty two-wall bone defects were made in the proximal region of the premolar in dry pig mandibles. Digital and conventional radiographs were taken using a Schick sensor and Kodak InSight F-speed intraoral dental film stabilized by a fixing device. Image manipulation was done using Adobe Photoshop 7.0 software with an embossing tool. Four trained examiners made all the radiographic measurements in millimeters a total of three times—from the cementoenamel junction to the most apical extension of the bone loss—with both types of imaging (embossed digital and unprocessed film). As a gold standard, the measurements were also made in dry mandibles using a periodontal probe and digital caliper. Analysis of variance was applied to compare the measurements with both types of imaging and from the dry mandibles. The level of significance was 0.05 for a 95 % confidence interval.

Results

The mean values of the measurements for embossed digital imaging, unprocessed film-based imaging, and visual measurement in the dry mandible were, respectively, 5.91, 6.62, and 6.67 mm. There was a statistically significant difference among the three methods (p = 0.007). Tukey’s post hoc analysis indicated a similarity between the mean values for unprocessed film-based imaging and dry mandible measurement, but not with embossed imaging.

Conclusions

Bone-loss measurement using embossed digital imaging was inferior to unprocessed film-based imaging, and it underestimated the amount of bone loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Li G, Engström PE, Nasström K, Lü ZY, Sanderink G, Welander U. Marginal bone levels measured in film and digital radiographs corrected for attenuation and visual response: an in vivo study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:7–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Stelt PF. Modern radiographic methods in the diagnosis of periodontal disease. Adv Dent Res. 1993;7:158–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jorgenson T, Masood F, Beckerley JM, Burgin C, Parker DE. Comparison of two imaging modalities: F-speed film and digital images for detection of osseous defects in patients with interdental vertical bone defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:500–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eickholz P, Kim TS, Benn DK, Staehle HJ. Validity of radiographic measurement of interproximal bone loss. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85:99–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eickholz P, Riess T, Lenhard M, Hassfeld S, Staehle HJ. Digital radiography of interproximal bone loss; validity of different filters. J Clin Periodontol. 1999;26:294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eickholz P, Hausmann E. Accuracy of radiographic assessment of interproximal bone loss in intrabony defects using linear measurements. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000;108:70–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mol A. Imaging methods in periodontology. Periodontology. 2000;2004(34):34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn SM, Kantor ML. Digital radiology. Facts and fictions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993;124:38–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matzen LH, Christensen J, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:566–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt PF. An evaluation of periapical radiography with a charge-coupled device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27:97–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Furkart AJ, Dove SB, McDavid WD, Nummikoski P, Matteson S. Direct digital radiography for the detection of periodontal bone lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;74:652–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nair MK, Ludlow JB, Tyndall DA, Platin E, Denton G. Periodontitis detection efficacy of film and digital images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85:608–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borg E, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Marginal bone level buccal to mandibular molars in digital radiographs from charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. An in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol. 1997;24:306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Morais JA, Sakakura CE, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. Accuracy of zoomed digital image in the detection of periodontal bone defect: in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:139–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakakura CE, Loffredo Lde C, Scaf G. Diagnostic agreement of conventional and inverted scanned panoramic radiographs in the detection of the mandibular canal and the mental foramen. J Oral Implantol. 2004;30:2–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scaf G, Morihisa O, Loffredo LCM. Comparison between inverted and unprocessed digitized radiographic imaging in periodontal bone loss measurements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15:492–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Platin E, Nair M. A comparison of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film and the Siemens Sidexis digital imaging system for caries detection using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85:113–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Borg E, Attaelmanan A, Gröndahl HG. Subjective image quality of solid state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000;29:70–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tihanyi D, Gera I, Eickholz P. Influence of individual brightness and contrast adjustment on accuracy of radiographic measurements of infrabony defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:177–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leonardi RM, Giordano D, Maiorana F, Greco M. Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32:242–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wiesemann RB, Scheetz JP, Silveira A, Farman TT, Farman AG. Cephalometric landmark clarity in photostimulable phosphor images using pseudo-colour and emboss enhancements. Int J CARS. 2006;1:105–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Scaf G, Sakakura CE, Kalil PF, Dearo De Morais JA, Loffredo LC, Wenzel A. Comparison of simulated periodontal bone defect depth measured in digital radiographs in dedicated and non-dedicated software systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:422–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Isidor S, Faaborg-Andersen M, Hintze H, Kirkevang LL, Frydenberg M, Haiter-Neto F, et al. Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:537–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Gotfredsen E. Influence of spatial resolution and bit depth on detection of small caries lesions with digital receptors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;103:418–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heo MS, Han DH, An BM, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Lee SS, et al. Effect of ambient light and bit depth of digital radiograph on observer performance in determination of endodontic file positioning. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105:239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heo MS, Choi DH, Benavides E, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Lee SS, et al. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108:278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hellén-Halme K, Petersson A, Warfvinge G, Nilsson M. Effect of ambient light and monitor brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:380–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wenzel A. Computer-aided image manipulation of intraoral radiographs to enhance diagnosis in dental practice: a review. Int Dent J. 1993;43:99–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wolf B, Von Bethlenfalvy E, Hassfeld S, Staehle HJ, Eickholz P. Reliability of assessing interproximal bone loss by digital radiography: intrabony defects. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:869–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chalazonitis AN, Koumarianos D, Tzovara J, Chronopoulos P. How to optimize radiological images captured from digital cameras, using the Adobe Photoshop 6.0 program. J Digit Imaging. 2003;16:216–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carvalho FB, Gonçalves M, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru-Filho M. Evaluation of periapical changes following endodontic therapy: digital subtraction technique compared with computerized morphometric analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Laskarin M, Brkić H, Pichler G, Buković D. The influence of age on tooth root colour changes. Coll Antropol. 2006;30:807–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank CAPES for the fellowship of graduate students and FAPESP (State of São Paulo Research Foundation) Process no. 02/13328-0 for the undergraduate students. We greatly appreciate the assistance of Mrs. Kimberly Kubitza in the editing of the English version.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Araraquara Dental School, UNESP, São Paulo State University, Araraquara, SP, Brazil

    Rafael Scaf de Molon, Celso Eduardo Sakakura, Juliana Aparecida Najarro Dearo Morais-Camillo, Paulo César de Almeida Júnior, Leonor de Castro Monteiro Loffredo & Gulnara Scaf

  2. Departamento de Diagnóstico e Cirurgia, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara, UNESP, Rua Humaitá 1680, Araraquara, SP, 14801-903, Brazil

    Rafael Scaf de Molon

Authors
  1. Rafael Scaf de Molon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Celso Eduardo Sakakura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juliana Aparecida Najarro Dearo Morais-Camillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paulo César de Almeida Júnior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leonor de Castro Monteiro Loffredo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gulnara Scaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Scaf de Molon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Molon, R.S., Sakakura, C.E., Morais-Camillo, J.A.N.D. et al. Comparison between embossed digital imaging and unprocessed film-based radiography in detecting periodontal bone defects: an in vitro study. Oral Radiol 28, 95–100 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-012-0088-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-012-0088-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation