Limits...
The effects of noise reduction, sharpening, enhancement, and image magnification on diagnostic accuracy of a photostimulable phosphor system in the detection of non-cavitated approximal dental caries.

Kajan ZD, Tayefeh Davalloo R, Tavangar M, Valizade F - Imaging Sci Dent (2015)

Bottom Line: The diagnostic accuracy of the observers was compared using a chi-squared test.The accuracy levels irrespective of the image processing method ranged from weak (18.8%) to intermediate (54.2%), but the highest accuracy was achieved at the sixth image processing step.The overall diagnostic accuracy level showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0001).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Contrast, sharpness, enhancement, and density can be changed in digital systems. The important question is to what extent the changes in these variables affect the accuracy of caries detection.

Materials and methods: Forty eight extracted human posterior teeth with healthy or proximal caries surfaces were imaged using a photostimulable phosphor (PSP) sensor. All original images were processed using a six-step method: (1) applying "Sharpening 2" and "Noise Reduction" processing options to the original images; (2) applying the "Magnification 1:3" option to the image obtained in the first step; (3) enhancing the original images by using the "Diagonal/" option; (4) reviewing the changes brought about by the third step of image processing and then, applying "Magnification 1:3"; (5) applying "Sharpening UM" to the original images; and (6) analyzing the changes brought about by the fifth step of image processing, and finally, applying "Magnification 1:3." Three observers evaluated the images. The tooth sections were evaluated histologically as the gold standard. The diagnostic accuracy of the observers was compared using a chi-squared test.

Results: The accuracy levels irrespective of the image processing method ranged from weak (18.8%) to intermediate (54.2%), but the highest accuracy was achieved at the sixth image processing step. The overall diagnostic accuracy level showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0001).

Conclusion: This study shows that the application of "Sharpening UM" along with the "Magnification 1:3" processing option improved the diagnostic accuracy and the observer agreement more effectively than the other processing procedures.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Selection of the "Sharpening 2" option for the original image (A), and then, application of the "Noise Reduction" feature once (B).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4483624&req=5

Figure 2: Selection of the "Sharpening 2" option for the original image (A), and then, application of the "Noise Reduction" feature once (B).

Mentions: All originally captured images were processed using a six-step method as follows: (1) applying the "Sharpening 2" and one-time "Noise Reduction" processing options to the original images (Figs. 2A and B); (2) applying the "Magnification 1:3" option to the image obtained in the first step; (3) enhancing the original image by using the "Diagonal/" option (Fig. 3A); (4) reviewing the changes brought about by the third step of image processing and then applying "Magnification 1:3" to the image obtained in the third step (Figs. 3A and B); (5) applying the "Sharpening UM" option to the original image; and (6) analyzing the changes brought about by the fifth step of image processing, and finally, applying "Magnification 1:3" to the image obtained in the fifth step. The images processed in each step were saved in separate folders.


The effects of noise reduction, sharpening, enhancement, and image magnification on diagnostic accuracy of a photostimulable phosphor system in the detection of non-cavitated approximal dental caries.

Kajan ZD, Tayefeh Davalloo R, Tavangar M, Valizade F - Imaging Sci Dent (2015)

Selection of the "Sharpening 2" option for the original image (A), and then, application of the "Noise Reduction" feature once (B).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4483624&req=5

Figure 2: Selection of the "Sharpening 2" option for the original image (A), and then, application of the "Noise Reduction" feature once (B).
Mentions: All originally captured images were processed using a six-step method as follows: (1) applying the "Sharpening 2" and one-time "Noise Reduction" processing options to the original images (Figs. 2A and B); (2) applying the "Magnification 1:3" option to the image obtained in the first step; (3) enhancing the original image by using the "Diagonal/" option (Fig. 3A); (4) reviewing the changes brought about by the third step of image processing and then applying "Magnification 1:3" to the image obtained in the third step (Figs. 3A and B); (5) applying the "Sharpening UM" option to the original image; and (6) analyzing the changes brought about by the fifth step of image processing, and finally, applying "Magnification 1:3" to the image obtained in the fifth step. The images processed in each step were saved in separate folders.

Bottom Line: The diagnostic accuracy of the observers was compared using a chi-squared test.The accuracy levels irrespective of the image processing method ranged from weak (18.8%) to intermediate (54.2%), but the highest accuracy was achieved at the sixth image processing step.The overall diagnostic accuracy level showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0001).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Contrast, sharpness, enhancement, and density can be changed in digital systems. The important question is to what extent the changes in these variables affect the accuracy of caries detection.

Materials and methods: Forty eight extracted human posterior teeth with healthy or proximal caries surfaces were imaged using a photostimulable phosphor (PSP) sensor. All original images were processed using a six-step method: (1) applying "Sharpening 2" and "Noise Reduction" processing options to the original images; (2) applying the "Magnification 1:3" option to the image obtained in the first step; (3) enhancing the original images by using the "Diagonal/" option; (4) reviewing the changes brought about by the third step of image processing and then, applying "Magnification 1:3"; (5) applying "Sharpening UM" to the original images; and (6) analyzing the changes brought about by the fifth step of image processing, and finally, applying "Magnification 1:3." Three observers evaluated the images. The tooth sections were evaluated histologically as the gold standard. The diagnostic accuracy of the observers was compared using a chi-squared test.

Results: The accuracy levels irrespective of the image processing method ranged from weak (18.8%) to intermediate (54.2%), but the highest accuracy was achieved at the sixth image processing step. The overall diagnostic accuracy level showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0001).

Conclusion: This study shows that the application of "Sharpening UM" along with the "Magnification 1:3" processing option improved the diagnostic accuracy and the observer agreement more effectively than the other processing procedures.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus