Limits...
Evaluation of a Mathematical Model for Digital Image Enhancement.

Geha H, Nasseh I, Noujeim M - Open Dent J (2015)

Bottom Line: Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading.The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate.Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, United States.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the detected number of holes on a stepwedge on images resulting from the application of the 5th degree polynomial model compared to the images resulting from the application of linear enhancement. Material and Methods : A 10-step aluminum step wedge with holes randomly drilled on each step was exposed with three different kVp and five exposure times per kVp on a Schick33(®) sensor. The images were enhanced by brightness/contrast adjustment, histogram equalization and with the 5th degree polynomial model and compared to the original non-enhanced images by six observers in two separate readings. Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading. There was a significant three-factor interaction among Method, Exposure time, and kVp in detecting holes. The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate. Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Images compared on exposure settings: 66 kVp and 0.04s
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4598423&req=5

Figure 2: Images compared on exposure settings: 66 kVp and 0.04s

Mentions: The images were viewed as “original images” (Original), automatically adjusted brightness and contrast images (B/C), auto equalized images (Equalized) and images adjusted based on the 5th degree polynomial fit. A total of 60 images were viewed independently by six observers: Two Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologist (OMR) faculty, two OMR Residents and two Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) residents. The observers were asked to count the numbers of holes visible on each image. The reading was repeated after 2 weeks (Fig. 2).


Evaluation of a Mathematical Model for Digital Image Enhancement.

Geha H, Nasseh I, Noujeim M - Open Dent J (2015)

Images compared on exposure settings: 66 kVp and 0.04s
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4598423&req=5

Figure 2: Images compared on exposure settings: 66 kVp and 0.04s
Mentions: The images were viewed as “original images” (Original), automatically adjusted brightness and contrast images (B/C), auto equalized images (Equalized) and images adjusted based on the 5th degree polynomial fit. A total of 60 images were viewed independently by six observers: Two Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologist (OMR) faculty, two OMR Residents and two Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) residents. The observers were asked to count the numbers of holes visible on each image. The reading was repeated after 2 weeks (Fig. 2).

Bottom Line: Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading.The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate.Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, United States.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the detected number of holes on a stepwedge on images resulting from the application of the 5th degree polynomial model compared to the images resulting from the application of linear enhancement. Material and Methods : A 10-step aluminum step wedge with holes randomly drilled on each step was exposed with three different kVp and five exposure times per kVp on a Schick33(®) sensor. The images were enhanced by brightness/contrast adjustment, histogram equalization and with the 5th degree polynomial model and compared to the original non-enhanced images by six observers in two separate readings. Results : There was no significant difference between the readers and between the first and second reading. There was a significant three-factor interaction among Method, Exposure time, and kVp in detecting holes. The overall pattern was: "Poly" results in the highest counts, "Original" in the lowest counts, with "B/C" and "Equalized" intermediate. Conclusion : The 5th degree polynomial model showed more holes when compared to the other modalities.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus