View Item 

Show simple item record

Image quality evaluation of eight complementary metalâ oxide semiconductor intraoral digital Xâ ray sensors
dc.contributor.authorTeich, Sorin
dc.contributor.authorAl‐rawi, Wisam
dc.contributor.authorHeima, Masahiro
dc.contributor.authorFaddoul, Fady F.
dc.contributor.authorGoldzweig, Gil
dc.contributor.authorGutmacher, Zvi
dc.contributor.authorAizenbud, Dror
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-17T21:16:52Z
dc.date.available2017-12-01T21:54:11Zen
dc.date.issued2016-10
dc.identifier.citationTeich, Sorin; Al‐rawi, Wisam ; Heima, Masahiro; Faddoul, Fady F.; Goldzweig, Gil; Gutmacher, Zvi; Aizenbud, Dror (2016). "Image quality evaluation of eight complementary metalâ oxide semiconductor intraoral digital Xâ ray sensors." International Dental Journal 66(5): 264-271.
dc.identifier.issn0020-6539
dc.identifier.issn1875-595X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/134084
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherImaging
dc.subject.otherdigital sensors
dc.subject.othercomplementary metalâ oxide semiconductor
dc.subject.otherVisual Grading Characteristics
dc.subject.otheroral diagnosis
dc.titleImage quality evaluation of eight complementary metalâ oxide semiconductor intraoral digital Xâ ray sensors
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134084/1/idj12241_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134084/2/idj12241.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/idj.12241
dc.identifier.sourceInternational Dental Journal
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLudlow JB, Daviesâ Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations. J Am Dent Assoc 2008 139: 1237 â 143.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParks ET. Digital radiographic imaging is the dental practice ready? J Am Dent Assoc 2008 139: 477 â 481.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThe Dental Market: Techniques, Equipment & Materials (HLC028D). BCC Research; 2012.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWenzel A. A review of dentistsâ use of digital radiography and caries diagnosis with digital systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006 35: 307 â 314.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBhaskaran V, Qualtrough A, Rushton V et al. A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics. Int Endod J 2005 38: 645 â 652.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKitagawa H, Farman A, Scheetz J et al. Comparison of three intraâ oral storage phosphor systems using subjective image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000 29: 272 â 276.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBorg E, Attaelmanan A, Gröndahl H. Subjective image quality of solidâ state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intraâ oral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000 29: 70 â 75.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWelander U, McDavid WD, Higgins NM et al. The effect of viewing conditions on the perceptibility of radiographic details. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983 56: 651 â 654.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T et al. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999a 87: 115 â 122.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T et al. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radioâ graphy systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999b 87: 123 â 129.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoshiura K, Stamatakis H, Shi X et al. The perceptibility curve test applied to direct digital dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998 27: 131 â 135.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKutcher MJ, Kalathingal S, Ludlow JB et al. The effect of lighting conditions on caries interpretation with a laptop computer in a clinical setting. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006 102: 537 â 543.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOrafi I, Worthington H, Qualtrough A et al. The impact of different viewing conditions on radiological file and working length measurement. Int Endod J 2010 43: 600 â 607.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCederberg R, Frederiksen N, Benson B et al. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999 28: 203 â 207.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIsidor S, Faaborgâ Andersen M, Hintze H et al. Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009 38: 537 â 541.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCederberg RA. Intraoral digital radiography: elements of effective imaging. Compend Contin Educ Dent (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995) 2012 33: 656.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiles D, Razzano M. The future of digital imaging in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2000 44: 427 â 438.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBÃ¥th M, MÃ¥nsson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a nonâ parametric rankâ invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 2007 80: 169 â 176.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMÃ¥nsson L. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000 90: 89 â 99.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMetz CE, Herman BA, Roe CA. Statistical comparison of two ROCâ curve estimates obtained from partiallyâ paired datasets. Med Decis Making 1998 18: 110 â 121.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOliveira M, Ambrosano G, Almeida S et al. Efficacy of several digital radiographic imaging systems for laboratory determination of endodontic file length. Int Endod J 2011 44: 469 â 473.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTapiovaara M. Review of relationships between physical measurements and user evaluation of image quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008 129: 244 â 248.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBusch H, Faulkner K. Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005 117: 143 â 147.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRadun J, Leisti T, Virtanen T et al. Evaluating the multivariate visual quality performance of imageâ processing components. ACM Trans Appl Percept 2010 7: 16.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJanssen T, Blommaert F. A computational approach to image quality. Displays 2000 21: 129 â 142.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRadun J, Leisti T, Häkkinen J et al. Content and quality: interpretationâ based estimation of image quality. ACM Trans Appl Percept 2008 4: 2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSilverstein D, Farrell J. The relationship between image fidelity and image quality. Image Processing, 1996 Proceedings, International Conference on: IEEE; 1996. p. 881 â 884.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLudlow J, Abreu M. Performance of film, desktop monitor and laptop displays in caries detection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999 28: 26 â 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrian J, Williamson G. Digital radiography in dentistry: a survey of Indiana dentists. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007 36: 18 â 23.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWenzel A, Møystad A. Decision criteria and characteristics of Norwegian general dental practitioners selecting digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001 30: 197 â 202.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2005 136: 1379 â 1387.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSanderink GC, Huiskens R, Van der Stelt PF et al. Image quality of direct digital intraoral xâ ray sensors in assessing root canal length: the RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sensâ Aâ Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994 78: 125 â 132.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBritoâ Júnior M, Santos LAN, Baleeiro à N et al. Linear measurements to determine working length of curved canals with fine files: conventional versus digital radiography. J Oral Sci 2009 51: 559 â 564.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnbiaee N, Mohassel A, Imanimoghaddam M et al. A comparison of the accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010 11: 25 â 32.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUlusu T, Bodur H, OdabaÅ M. In vitro comparison of digital and conventional bitewing radiographs for the detection of approximal caries in primary teeth exposed and viewed by a new wireless handheld unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010 39: 91 â 94.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
idj12241_am.pdf
Size:
937.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
idj12241.pdf
Size:
415.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.