Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ink-jet printout of radiographs on transparent film and glossy paper versus monitor display: an ROC analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the depiction ability of small grayscale contrasts in ink-jet printouts of digital radiographs on different print media with CRT monitor. A CCD-based digital cephalometric image of a stepless aluminum wedge containing 50 bur holes of different depth was cut into 100 isometric images. Each image was printed on glossy paper and on transparent film by means of a high-resolution desktop inkjet printer at specific settings. The printed images were viewed under standardized conditions, and the perceptibility of the bur holes was evaluated and compared to the perceptibility on a 17-in CRT monitor. Thirty observers stated their blinded decision on a five-point confidence scale. Areas (Az) under receiver operating characteristics curves were calculated and compared using the pair wise sign tests. Overall agreement was estimated using Cohen’s kappa device and observer bias using McNemar’s test. Glossy paper prints and monitor display revealed significantly higher (P < 0.001) average Az values (0.83) compared to prints on transparent film (0.79), which was caused by higher sensitivity. Specificity was similar for all modalities. The sensitivity was dependent on the mean gray scale values for the transparent film.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geissler O, Rother U (2007) The film-based printout using tetenal printing solution II. Int J Comput Dent 10:285–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wenzel A (1999) Matters to consider when implementing direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int J Comput Dent 2:269–290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schulze RKW, Schulze D, Voss K, Rottner M, Keller H-P, Dollmann K, Maager B, Wedel M (2008) Quality of individually calibrated customary printers for assessment of typical dental diagnoses on glossy paper prints: a multicenter pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:578–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Combs MJ, Snell J, Cail WS, Maier T, Buck DA (1995) The gray-scale ink jet printer: value in making hard copies of digital images. Am J Roentgenol 164:225–227

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, Nilsson J, Lyttkens K, Andersson B, Holmer N-G (1994) Demonstration of digital radiographs by means of ink jet-printed paper copies: pilot study. J Digit Imaging 5:246–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lyttkens K, Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, Andersson B, Ebbesen A, Hochbergs P, Jarlman O, Lindberg C-G, Holmer N-G (1994) Evaluation of the image quality of ink jet-printed paper copies of digital chest radiographs as compared with film: a receiver operating characteristic study. J Digit Imaging 7:61–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 Investig 8:25–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Otis L, Sherman RG (2005) Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph. Film versus print. J Am Dent Assoc 136:323–300

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodman LR, Wilson CR, Foley WD (1988) Digital radiography of the chest: promises and problems. Am J Roentgenol 150:1241–1252

    Google Scholar 

  10. Weinstein LM, Fitzer MS, Fitzer PM (1975) Detail enhancement in prints of radiographs. use of a linear radial transmission filter. Radiology 115:726–728

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bley TA, Kotter E, Saueressig U, Springer OS, Fisch D, Ghanem NA, Langer M (2003) Using receiver operating characteristic methodology to evaluate the diagnostic quality of radiography on paper print versus film. AJR Am Roentgenol 181:1487–1490

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bednarek DR, Rudin S (1991) Blurred-mask density compression for improved reproduction of radiographs. Invest Radiol 26:358–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Benediktsdottir I, Wenzel A (2004) Accuracy of digital panoramic images displayed on monitor, glossy paper, and film for assessment of mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98:217–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agresti A (1989) An agreement model with kappa as parameter. Stat Probab Lett 7:271–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hubert L, Golledge RG (1983) Rater agreement for complex assessments. Brit J Math Stat Psychol 36:207–216

    Google Scholar 

  16. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Surgery, Oral Radiology and Oral Medicine, School of Dental Medicine University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Sebastian Kühl, Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt & Thomas J. Lambrecht

  2. Department of Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Informatics, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany

    Frank Krummenauer

  3. Department of Oral Surgery (and Oral Radiology), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany

    Sebastian Kühl, Bernd d’Hoedt & Ralf Kurt Willy Schulze

  4. Klinik für Zahnärztliche Chirurgie, -Radiologie, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde, Universität Basel, Hebelstrasse 3, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland

    Sebastian Kühl

Authors
  1. Sebastian Kühl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Krummenauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas J. Lambrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bernd d’Hoedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ralf Kurt Willy Schulze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Kühl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kühl, S., Krummenauer, F., Dagassan-Berndt, D. et al. Ink-jet printout of radiographs on transparent film and glossy paper versus monitor display: an ROC analysis. Clin Oral Invest 15, 351–356 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0400-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0400-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation