Digital file format does not influence the radiographic diagnosis of vertical root fracture

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the influence of the file format of digital periapical radiographs on the diagnosis of vertical root fracture (VRF). Study design Periapical radiographic images of 34 single-rooted teeth—19 with VRF, and 15 without VRF were acquired using two digital systems—Digora Toto, and Digora Optime, and exported into four different file formats—TIFF, BMP, PNG, and JPEG, totaling 272 radiographs. The radiographs were assessed by five examiners for the detection of VRF, using a 5-point scale (1—definitely absent; 2—probably absent; 3—uncertain; 4—probably present; 5—definitely present). Diagnostic values of area under the ROC curve, specificity, and sensitivity for the diagnosis of VRF were calculated. The results were compared by two-way Analysis of Variance with post hoc Tukey’s test. The intra- and inter-examiner agreements were measured by the Kappa test. The significance level was set at 5% for all analyses. Results The values of intra-examiner agreement varied from moderate (0.56) to almost perfect (0.81), while the values of inter-examiner agreement varied from fair (0.29) to moderate (0.60). The image file format did not influence the diagnostic values for VRF for any of the radiographic systems tested ( p > 0.05). Digora Toto had significantly greater values of area under the ROC curve than Digora Optime for all file formats ( p = 0.001). Conclusion The image file format of periapical radiographs does not influence the diagnosis of VRF, regardless of the digital radiography system.

DICOM file format has better radiographic image quality than other file formats: an objective study

“…These findings regarding DICOM suggest that it offers superior image quality in terms of the evaluated parameters. In contrast, previous subjective analyses of various diagnostic tasks, such as radiographic diagnosis of proximal carious lesions, external and internal root resorption, and vertical root fracture 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 15 have not identified significant differences in technical factors that affect digital image quality parameters among different formats. However, it is important to note that these evaluations did not include the DICOM format, highlighting the need to incorporate this image file format in future studies focusing on different diagnostic tasks.…”

“…Thus, it is necessary to load the DICOM image into secondary software to allow adequate visualization, which hinders the practical process of radiographic analysis in these devices 19 . Conversely, direct visualization of images in JPEG file format is possible using handheld devices due to its recognition by the graphics systems of the handheld devices, smaller file size, and fast transmission 4 , 15 . A previous investigation 4 proved that online streaming of radiographic images in JPEG format did not impair caries lesion diagnosis.…”

“…Several previous studies have investigated the influence of the compression level of digital periapical radiographic images on the subjective evaluation of various diagnostic tasks, such as root resorptions, caries lesions, root fractures, and periapical lesions 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . Although most studies 3 , 4 , 5 , 15 have found no influence between the degree of compression of the images and diagnostic accuracy of the aforementioned clinical conditions, there is still a gap in the literature regarding a consistent explanation for these results. One of the gaps is not including the DICOM image file format in the evaluations, even being recommended as the file format for medical imaging transmission 1 .…”

Effect of decompression and online transmission on the dimensional changes of .stl files generated by intra-oral scanning

“…Other studies have evaluated these online transmission tools and their influence on the diagnosis of dental conditions such as caries and fractures. The results show no influence of these apps on the quality of the diagnosis [ 17 , 18 ].…”