Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images

Cederberg, R A; Frederiksen, N L; Benson, B W; Shulman, J D

doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600377

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Price [1972] registered only a minor loss of image contrast with the increased film density folvariance in favor of such images compared to colored image surroundings with text and graphics . However, the recognition of approximal caries lesions was influenced neither by background color, image size nor by screen glare from overhead lighting in another study [Cederberg et al, 1998]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Approximal Caries Depth Assessment with Storage Phosphor versus Film Radiography

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To study whether caries–specific enhancement of storage phosphor images might improve the observer performance of approximal caries depth assessments compared with film radiography. Materials and Methods: 120 exposures were made of 120 extracted human teeth. To obtain geometrically identical images, Ektaspeed Plus films and storage phosphor plates were exposed simultaneously. The imaging plates were scanned in a Digora^® scanner and the files transferred to a different platform for image enhancement. Nine observers viewed films and storage phosphor images without provisions for adjustment of image intensity and contrast. For each imaging modality, 240 approximal surfaces were rated for caries on a 5–point confidence scale. Definite and probable caries lesions were also rated for lesion depth, and all ratings were compared with the histological state. Diagnostic accuracy was expressed as the area under the ROC curve (A_z value). Paired t tests were used to compare the imaging modalities for diagnostic accuracy and F tests to compare observer variances. Results: Enhanced storage phosphor images demonstrated significantly higher mean A_z values than film (p = 0.0066). Significantly higher mean A_z values were demonstrated in the outer half of enamel (p = 0.01), but no significant differences were found between the modalities for caries lesions penetrating beyond the outer half of the enamel. The number of correctly diagnosed true–positive surfaces with caries in outer enamel was significantly higher with storage phosphor images than with film (p = 0.00014). False–positive surfaces were most frequently registered in the outer enamel with both modalities, but in this region the number of false–positive surfaces was significantly higher with storage phosphor images than with film (p = 0.0038). Pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.48/0.94 and 0.61/0.86 for film and storage phosphor images, respectively. The interobserver variability was significantly lower for storage phosphor images than for film. Conclusion: Enhancement of storage phosphor images with a caries–specific procedure significantly improved the accuracy of caries depth assessments in the outer half of the enamel compared with film radiography and reduced observer variability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Approximal Caries Depth Assessment with Storage Phosphor versus Film Radiography

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, an object used standardized details to construct a perceptibility curve, a test that assesses the observers' performance to visual stimuli, regardless of their level of knowledge, thus they only reported on what they saw. 22 Conversely, in studies [8][9][10][11][12][13] that seek to evaluate the observer's performance for a specific diagnosis in a condition for a given combination of factors, the level of knowledge of the observer 13 can be considered as a bias because an observer's lack of knowledge can invalidate the results. Regarding a second matter that relates to the ambient-light level, only the study by Schriewer et al 11 has evaluated the influence of ambient-light levels on the observer's performance for detecting standardized details; however, these researchers' results differed from the present study in that ambient light was not a factor of influence for their perception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compare this with a standard computer monitor, which shows images with 256 shades of grey. 7 However, there is controversy regarding changes in observational conditions of digital radiography related to ambient-light levels [8][9][10][11][12][13] if the light interferes with any diagnostic performance owing to non-linearity of the photoreceptors responding to incremental stimuli related to a gain in overall luminance levels. 14 Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the perception of details in dental restorative composites of different radio-opacities under the influence of ambient light.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions

Cruz

Lobo²,

Lemos³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to assess how details on dental restorative composites with different radio-opacities are perceived under the influence of ambient light. Methods: Resin composite step wedges (six steps, each 1-mm thick) were custom manufactured from three materials, respectively: (M1) FiltekÔ Z350 (3M/ESPE, Saint Paul, MN); (M2) Prisma AP.HÔ (Dentsply International Inc., Brazil) and (M3) Glacier ® (SDI Limited, Victoria, Australia). Each step of the manufactured wedge received three standardized drillings of different diameters and depths. An aluminium (Al) step wedge with 12 steps (1-mm thick) was used as an internal standard to calculate the radio-opacity as pixel intensity values. Standardized digital images of the set were obtained, and 11 observers independently recorded the images, noting the number of noticeable details (drillings) under 2 dissimilar conditions: in a light environment (light was turned on in the room) and in lowlight conditions (light in the room was turned off). The differences between images in terms of the number of details that were observed were statistically compared using ANOVA, Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests, with a significance level setting of 5% (a 5 0.05). Results: The M2 showed higher radio-opacity, the M1 displayed intermediate radio-opacity and the M3 showed lower radio-opacity, respectively; however, all three were without significance (p . 0.05) compared with each other. The differences in radio-opacity resulted in a significant variation (p , 0.05) in the number of noticeable details in the image, which were influenced by characteristics of details, in addition to the ambient-light level. Conclusions: The radio-opacity of materials and ambient light can affect the perception of details in digital radiographic images.

show abstract

“…[6][7][8][9] However, their results in relation to the influence of the viewing environment were not necessarily in agreement. Therefore, this study quantitatively assessed the effects of changes in the viewing environment, especially the effects of room lighting and the optical density of intraoral radiographs, on the detection of low-contrast differences and details.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Effects of viewing conditions on the detection of contrast details on intraoral radiographs

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Approximal Caries Depth Assessment with Storage Phosphor versus Film Radiography

Approximal Caries Depth Assessment with Storage Phosphor versus Film Radiography

Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions

Effects of viewing conditions on the detection of contrast details on intraoral radiographs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About