Oral Radiology

, 16:73 | Cite as

Effects of scanning resolution and digital image magnification on photostimulable phosphor imaging system

  • Takashi Sakurai
  • Masafumi Inagaki
  • Hideomi Asai
  • Atsushi Koyama
  • Isamu Kashima
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the effects of changes in scanning resolution and digital magnification on the image quality and diagnostic ability of the photostimulable phosphor imaging system.

Methods

Using a photostimulable phosphor imaging system, images of a human adult dried mandible phantom embedded in a 25 mm-thick epoxy resin block were made. The latent images on the photostimulable phosphor imaging plate were scanned using four different pixel sizes as follows: 25μm×25μm, 50μm×50μm, 100μm×100μm and 200μm×200μm. A primary image was produced for each pixel size. These images were also digitally magnified at powers of 2, 4 and 8 times. The gradient range, brightness and contrast of each image were adjusted to optimum levels on a cathode ray tube display, and hard copies were produced with a writing pixel size of 60μm×60μm. The granularity, sharpness and anatomical diagnostic ability of the images were assessed subjectively by eight dentists.

Results

Increasing the scanning resolution tended to generally improve image quality and diagnostic ability. Visual image quality was maintained up to a pixel size of 50 μm, and diagnostic ability was maintained up to a pixel size of 100μm. Digital image magnification degrated image quality, and more than 2-times magnification degraded diagnostic ability.

Conclusions

Under the present experimental conditions, increasing the scanning resolution did not always lead to an improvement in image quality or diagnostic ability, and digital image magnification degraded image quality and diagnostic ability.

Key Words

Photostimulable phosphor imaging system Scanning resolution Digital magnificatio 

References

  1. 1).
    Kashima, I., Sakurai, T., Matsuki, T., Nakamura, K., Aoki, H. and Ishii, M.: Intraoral computed radiography using the Fuji computed radiography imaging plate: Correlation between image quality and reading condition.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 78: 239–246, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2).
    Moystad, A., Svanaes, D.B., Risnes, S., Larheim, T.A. and Gröndahl, H.G.: Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 25: 202–206, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3).
    Yoneda, J., Sakurai, T. and Nishimura, K.: Image quality of an intraoral storage phosphor imaging system for normal anatomical structures, proximal caries and decalcified bone changes.Oral Radiol. 13: 23–24, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4).
    Mouyen, F., Benz, C., Sonnabend, E. and Lodter, J.P.: Presentation and physical evaluation of Radio Visio Graphy.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 68: 238–242, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5).
    Nelvig, P., Wing, K. and Welander, U.: Sens-A-Ray: A new system for direct digital intraoral radiography.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 74: 818–823, 1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6).
    Sanderink, G.C.H., Huiskens, R., Van der Stelt, P.F., Welander, U.S. and Stheeman, S.E.: Image quality of direct digital intraoral X-ray sensors in assessing root canal length: The Radio Visio Graphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 78: 125–132, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7).
    Tsuchiya, T.: Visual recognition of spatial frequency information in diagnostic intraoral roentgenograms.Dent. Radiology. 28: 267–284, 1988 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  8. 8).
    Sato, S.: A study on evaluation of dental films by digital image processing: analysis of alveolar trabecular by means of two-dimensional FFT.Dent. Radiology. 26: 242–253, 1986 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    Kawahara, E. and Sakurai, T.: Spatial frequency components of normal radiographic anatomical features on intraoral computed radiography.Oral Radiol. 11: 87–96, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10).
    Isu, T. and Sakurai, T.: Spatial frequency processing conditions on intraoral computed radiography.Oral Radiol. 12: 27–38, 1996Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    Ohki, M., Okano, T. and Nakamura, T.: Factors determining the diagnostic accuracy of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 23: 77–82, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Svanaes, D.B., Moystad, A., Risnes, S., Larheim, T.A. and Gröndahl, H.G.: Intraoral storage phosphor radiography for approximal caries detection and effect of image magnification: Comparison with conventional radiography.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 82: 94–100, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Benn, D.K.: The digital dental office as the agent of change: symposium introduction.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 28: 55–56, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14).
    Analoui, M.: Digital diagnostic imaging: today and tomorrow.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 28: 56–58, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15).
    Janhom, A., Van der Stelt, P.F., Van Ginkel, F.C. and Geraets, W.G.: Effect of noise on the compressibility and diagnostic accuracy for caries detection of digital bitewing radiographs.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 28: 6–12, 1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16).
    Wenzel, A.: Sensor noise in direct digital imaging (the RadioVisioGraphy, Sens-a-Ray, and Visualix/Vixa systems) evaluated by subtraction radiography.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 77: 70–74, 1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17).
    Hayakawa, Y., Farman, A.G., Kelly, M.S. and Kuroyanagi, K.: Intraoral radiographic storage phosphor image mean pixel values and signal-to-noise ratio: effects of calibration.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 86: 601–605, 1998Google Scholar
  18. 18).
    Hildebolt, C.F., Fletcher, G., Yokoyama-Crothers, N., Conover, G.L. and Vannier, M.W.: A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 26: 147–151, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19).
    Versteeg, C.H., Sanderink, G.C., Van Ginkel, F.C. and Van der Stelt, P.F.: Effects of calibration and automatic greyscale adjustment on detectability of simulated bone lesions using a storage phosphor system.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 27: 240–244, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20).
    Yoshiura, K., Kawazu, T., Chikui, T., Tatsumi, M., Tokumori, K., Tanaka, T. and Kanda, S.: Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: Optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 87: 123–129, 1999Google Scholar
  21. 21).
    Hayakawa, Y., Farman, A.G., Scarfe, W.C., Kuroyanagi, K., Rumack, P.M. and Schick, D.B.: Optimum exposure ranges for computed dental radiography.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 25: 71–75, 1996PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Sakurai
    • 1
  • Masafumi Inagaki
    • 1
  • Hideomi Asai
    • 1
  • Atsushi Koyama
    • 1
  • Isamu Kashima
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial RadiologyKanagawa Dental CollegeKanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations