Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 719–726 | Cite as

The effects of compression on the image quality of digital panoramic radiographs

  • Füsun YasarEmail author
  • Esra Yesilova
  • Burcu Apaydın
Original Article


Size reduction through compression is an important issue that needs to be investigated for possible effects on image quality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the subjective image quality of digital panoramic radiographs which were lossless and lossy compressed for the visualization of various anatomical structures. Fifty-five digital panoramic radiographs in Tagged Image File Format (Tiff) were used in the study. Two types of lossy (Joint Photographic Experts Group (Jpeg)) and one type of lossless (Lempel–Ziv–Welch) compression were applied to the original radiographs. These radiographs were evaluated by two observers separately for the visibility of some anatomical structures with visual grading. Mean quality number for each radiograph was obtained. The differences between the mean quality numbers in each compression and original image mode were evaluated with Friedman test. Pair-wise comparisons revealed that there were statistically significant differences between all groups (p = 0.000) for all comparisons except for Jpeg_1 and Jpeg_2 groups. Kappa statistics was used to evaluate inter- and intra-observer agreements. Intra-observer agreements were ranging from 0.229 to 1.000 and inter-observer agreements were ranging from 0.154 to 1.000. The observers had better inter- and intra-observer agreements in highly compressed Jpeg_1 images. The anatomical structures evaluated in this study had better visibility in Tiff images than Jpeg images except for mandibular canal and mental foramen. While Jpeg compressed images offer high inter- and intra-observer agreements, the visibility of anatomical structures are better in Tiff images except for mandibular canal and mental foramen.


Digital panoramic radiography Image compression Image quality Anatomical structures 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

784_2011_587_MOESM1_ESM.doc (32 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 31 kb)


  1. 1.
    Van der Stelt PF (2005) Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1379–1387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farman AG, Jacobs WR (2007) Digital options for panoramic radiology. In: Farman AG (ed) Panoramic radiology seminars on maxillofacial imaging and interpretation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 7–14Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farman AG (2007) Getting the most out of panoramic radiographic interpretation. In: Farman AG (ed) Panoramic radiology seminars on maxillofacial imaging and interpretation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A (2008) Current concepts in maxillofacial imaging. Eur J Radiol 66(3):396–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lurie AG (2009) Panoramic imaging. In: White SC, Pharoah MC (eds) Oral radiology principles and interpretation, 6th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 175–190Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fidler A, Likar B, Lossy SU (2006) JPEG compression: easy to compress, hard to compare. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 35:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fidler A, Skaleric U, Likar B (2007) The effect of image content on detail preservation and file size reduction in lossy compression. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:387–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angelopoulos C, Bedard A, Katz JO, Karamanis S, Parissis N (2004) Digital panoramic radiography: an overview. Semin Orthod 10:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ludewig E, Richter A, Frame M (2010) Diagnostic imaging—evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis. Vet Res Commun 34:473–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan YH (2003) Biostatistics 102: quantitative data—parametric & non-parametric tests. Singap Med J 44:391–396Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seeram E (2006) Irreversible compression in digital radiology. A literature review. Radiography 12:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Persons K, Palisson P, Manduca A, Erickson BJ, Savcenko V (1997) An analytical look at the effects of compression on medical images. J Digit lmaging 10(3 suppl 1):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Versteeg CH, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF (1997) Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent 25:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Borg E, Gröndahl HG (1996) Impact of lossy image compression on accuracy of caries detection in digital images taken with a storage phosphor system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 81:351–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pabla T, Ludlow JB, Tyndall DA, Platin E, Abreu M Jr (2003) Effect of data compression on proximal caries detection: observer performance with DenOptix photostimulable phosphor images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 32:45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koenig L, Parks E, Analoui M, Eckert G (2004) The impact of image compression on diagnostic quality of digital images for detection of chemically-induced periapical lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:37–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eraso FE, Analoui M, Watson AB, Rebeschini R (2002) Impact of lossy compression on diagnostic accuracy of radiographs for periapical lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93:621–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hwang K, You SH (2010) Analysis of facial bone fractures: an 11-year study of 2,094 patients. Indian J Plast Surg 43:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dolan KD, Jacoby CG, Smoker WRK (1984) The radiology of facial fractures. Radiographics 4:577–663Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bollen AM, Taguchi A, Hujoel PP, Hollender LG (2000) Case-control study on self-reported osteoporotic fractures and mandibular cortical bone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 90:518–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu T, Xia B, Gu Z (2009) Inferior alveolar canal course: a radiographic study. Clin Oral Implant Res 20:1212–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenstein G, Tarnow D (2006) The mental foramen and nerve: clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement: a literature review. J Periodontol 77:1933–1943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levy FE, Smith RW, Odland RM, Marentette LJ (1991) Monocortical miniplate fixation of mandibular angle fractures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:149–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruprecht A, Lam EWN (2008) Paranasal sinuses. In: White SC, Pharoah MC (eds) Oral radiology principles and interpretation, 6th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 506–525Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tyndall DA, Matteson SR (1985) Radiographic appearance and population distribution of the pneumatized articular eminence of the temporal bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43:493–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petrikowski CG (2008) Diagnostic imaging of the temporomandibular joint. In: White SC, Pharoah MC (eds) Oral radiology principles and interpretation, 6th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 473–505Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pham D, Jonasson G, Kiliaridis S (2010) Assessment of trabecular pattern on periapical and panoramic radiographs: a pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand 68:91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ivanauskaite D, Lindh C, Rangne K, Rohlin M (2006) Comparison between Scanora panoramic radiography and bitewing radiography in the assessment of marginal bone tissue. Stomatologija 8:9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ríos-Santos JV, Ridao-Sacie C, Bullón P, Fernández-Palacín A, Segura-Egea JJ (2010) Assessment of periapical status: a comparative study using film-based periapical radiographs and digital panoramic images. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 15(6):e952–e956PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gijbels F, De Meyer AM, Bou Serhal C, Van den Bossche C, Declerck J, Persoons M, Jacobs R (2000) The subjective image quality of direct digital and conventional panoramic radiography. Clin Oral Invest 4(3):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Pauwels H, Jacobs R (2004) Subjective image quality of digital panoramic radiographs displayed on monitor and printed on various hardcopy media. Clin Oral Invest 8(1):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Molander B, Gröndahl HG, Ekestubbe A (2004) Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33(1):32–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Niimi T, Imai K, Ikeda M, Maeda H (2006) A method of clustering observers with different visual characteristics. Eur J Radiol 571:158–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Obuchowski NA, Zepp RC (1996) Simple steps for improving multiple-reader studies in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 166:517–521Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hintze H, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A (2003) Influence of number of surfaces and observers on statistical power in a multiobserver ROC radiographic caries detection study. Caries Res 37:200–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schulze R, Krummenauer F, Schalldach F, d'Hoedt B (2000) Precision and accuracy of measurements in digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 29:52–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mileman PA, van den Hout WB (2002) Comparing the accuracy of Dutch dentists and dental students in the radiographic diagnosis of dentinal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31:7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Dentistry FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineSelcuk UniversityMeram, KonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Dentistry FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations