Precision of measurements on conventional negative 'bones white' and inverted greyscale 'bones black' digital lateral cephalograms

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether the accuracy of measurement data from inverted greyscale digital cephalometric radiographs equals that obtained from conventional negative digital cephalometric radiographs. Fifty-five consecutively lateral cephalometric radiographs from a university orthodontic clinic obtained for treatment planning were used for this study. A 5 MB conventional negative 'bones white' and inverted greyscale 'bones black' TIFF digital image of each radiograph was produced. These were allocated a unique identifier and were analysed in random order by one clinician. Eighteen cephalometric landmarks were digitized using the Opal 2.1 package and the angles were calculated. The angular measurements were compared using two-sample t-tests (P < 0.05). The angular measurements from the conventional negative bones white and inverted greyscale bones black lateral cephalometric radiographs were neither statistically significantly different nor clinically different from each other. Therefore, measurements derived from conventional negative bones white and inverted greyscale bones black lateral cephalometric radiographs have a similar level of precision.

The use of panoramic radiographs modified by an open access software to determine Mandibular Cortical Index

“…It was observed that the use of the inverted images may be beneficial for the detection of root canals [40], and it can be useful for detecting health disorders in medical fields [36,37]. For cephalometric measurements, no advantage was noticed, the two images presented the same level of accuracy [41]. For proximal carious lesions, the image inversion did not present any benefits [42].…”

Utilização dos filtros da radiologia computadorizada para a avaliação da opacificação do forame intervertebral associada às hérnias de disco em cães

“…Com o advento da radiologia digital diversos estudos têm sido descritos quanto à eficácia e auxílio do processamento da imagem e suas variações na imagem final para a investigação e detecção de alterações (MACMAHON et al 1985;MACMAHON et al, 1988;OESTMANN et al, 1988;OESTMANN et al, 1989;SHELINE et al, 1989;PROKOP et al, 1990;KHEDDACHE et al, 1991;BUCKWALTER;BRAUNSTEIN,1992;LANGEN et al, 1993;VYBORNY, 1994;WENZEL, 1998;PISANO et al, 2000;NEITZEL;2003;OFFIAH et al, 2006;PARKS, 2008;REESE et al, 2011;BORRIE;THOMSON;MCINTYRE, 2012). Os resultados de tais estudos têm sido variados, onde alguns autores encontraram melhorias no desempenho diagnóstico com o processamento de imagens (SHELINE et al,1989); alguns não encontraram diferenças (OESTMANN et al, 1989;KHEDDACHE et al,1991;REESE et al, 2011;BORRIE, THOMSON;MCINTYRE, 2012), outros observaram efeitos que prejudicaram a imagem (MACMAHON et al, 1988;OESTMANN et al, 1988). e alguns encontraram efeitos positivos e negativos dependendo do tipo, da quantidade do processamento e o tipo de lesão ou imagem a ser estudada (MACMAHON et al 1985;BUCKWALTER;BRAUNSTEIN;PISANO et al, 2000).…”