The effects of compression on the image quality of digital panoramic radiographs
- 249 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDigital panoramic radiography Image compression Image quality Anatomical structures
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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.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
- 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
- 10.Chan YH (2003) Biostatistics 102: quantitative data—parametric & non-parametric tests. Singap Med J 44:391–396Google Scholar
- 12.Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.Dolan KD, Jacoby CG, Smoker WRK (1984) The radiology of facial fractures. Radiographics 4:577–663Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 36.Obuchowski NA, Zepp RC (1996) Simple steps for improving multiple-reader studies in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 166:517–521Google Scholar