Influence of the file format and transmission app on the radiographic diagnosis of caries lesions

Madlum, Daniela Verardi; Gaêta‐Araujo, Hugo; Brasil, Danieli Moura; Lima, Carlos; Oliveira, Matheus Lima; Haiter-Neto, Francisco

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2020.11.013

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Manufacturers offer two types of digital image receptors—photostimulable phosphor plates, and sensors—which have different technical characteristics (e.g., physical constitution, and spatial resolution) that can cause distinct image quality [ 5 , 6 ]. Both types of systems have numerous advantages over films, such as reduced radiation dose delivered to the patient, the possibility of image storage in digital media, and fast image display, transmission, and communication between professionals and between professionals and patients [ 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, the quantity and size of the image files can overload the digital storage media, hampering their transmission. A way to overcome this limitation and improve clinical workflow is to compress the radiographic images after their acquisition and to export them from the native software into different file formats [ 7 , 8 ]. Although several storage media platforms have become available, a reduction in the file size may be advantageous to avoid waste of virtual space, time, and money.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is possible to export the radiographic images into various file formats, such as tagged image file format (TIFF), bitmap—windows pattern (BMP), and portable network graphics (PNG), which represent a lossless (reversible) compression, in which all image data is preserved. On the other hand, some image file formats, such as joint photographic experts group (JPEG), involve a lossy (irreversible) compression, with loss of image data [ 7 ]. The major difference among these types of file formats is the level of compression employed, with TIFF presenting the lowest level of compression, and BMP, PNG, and JPEG formats having higher compression levels [ 7 – 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, some image file formats, such as joint photographic experts group (JPEG), involve a lossy (irreversible) compression, with loss of image data [ 7 ]. The major difference among these types of file formats is the level of compression employed, with TIFF presenting the lowest level of compression, and BMP, PNG, and JPEG formats having higher compression levels [ 7 – 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have reported the influence of the radiograph file format (i.e., the compression level) on the detection of caries lesions, periapical lesions, root resorptions, and root fractures in different radiography modalities (periapical, panoramic, and cephalometric radiography) [ 7 – 15 ]. However, the cited study on root fractures included both horizontal and vertical root fractures in the assessed sample, without specifying the influence of the file format on each type of fracture individually.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%