ORIGINAL ARTICLE

 

Bone mineral density on conventional and digitized images under different parameters of digitization and storage

 

 

Matheus Lima de Oliveira^I; Frab Norberto Bóscolo^II; Guilherme Monteiro Tosoni^III

^IDDS, MSc, Graduate Student, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Brazil
^IIDDS, MSc, PhD, Professor, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Brazil
^IIIDDS, MSc, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Araraquara Dental School, Sao Paulo State University, Brazil

Correspondence to

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

AIM: To assess the bone mineral density on conventional and digitized images, comparing whether different parameters of digitization and storage change these values.
METHODS: Twenty radiographs were taken from five partially dentulous dry mandibles with an aluminum 7-mm stepwedge placed on the superior edge of the film. After processing, the films were digitized with a resolution of 600 and 2,400 d.p.i. and saved as TIFF and JPEG files. On every conventional and digitized image, circular regions of interest were selected for densitometry and radiographic contrast analysis.
RESULTS: Pearson's correlation coefficient showed a significant and strong mean gray values association between digitized and conventional images, differing from radiographic contrast that did not show a significant association. ANOVA did not reveal a statistically significant difference in bone density and radiographic contrast among the four digitized image groups, but the conventional image contrast was significantly lower.
CONCLUSIONS: Bone mineral density did not differ in both conventional and digitized images. The parameters of image compression and resolution, tested in this study, did not change the results of densitometry and digitization process increased the radiographic contrast.

Keywords: bone density, densitometry, dental radiography, digital dental radiography.

---

 

 

Full text available only in PDF format.

 

 

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from FAPESP, a research foundation of the State of Sao Paulo Brazil (Process # 2005/04615-3).

 

References

1. Baksi BG, Ermis RB. Comparison of conventional and digital radiography for radiometric differentiation of dental cements. Quintessence Int. 2007; 38: 532-6.         [ Links ]

2. Christensen GJ. Why switch to digital radiography? J Am Dent Assoc. 2004; 135: 1437-9.         [ Links ]

3. Farman AG, Farman TT. A status report on digital imaging for dentistry. Oral Radiol. 2004; 20: 9-14.         [ Links ]

4. Parissis N, Angelopoulos C, Mantegari S, Karamanis S, Masood F, Tsirlis A. A comparison of panoramic image quality between a digital radiography storage phosphor system and a film-based system. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2010; 11: 9-16.         [ Links ]

5. Güneri P, Lomçali G, Boyacioðlu H, Kendir S. The effects of incremental brightness and contrast adjustments on radiographic data: a quantitative study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34: 20-7.         [ Links ]

6. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, Van Der Stelt PF. Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry. J Dent. 1997; 25: 215-24.         [ Links ]

7. Haiter-Neto F, Casanova MS, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A. Task-specific enhancement filters in storage phosphor images from the Vistascan system for detection of proximal caries lesions of known size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107: 116-21.         [ Links ]

8. Van der Stelt PF. Better imaging: the advantages of digital radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139: 7-13.         [ Links ]

9. Erdogan O, Incki KK, Benlidayi ME, Seydaoglu G, Kelekci S. Dental and radiographic findings as predictors of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2009; 9: 155-64.         [ Links ]

10. Braun AP, Grassi Soares C, Glüer Carracho H, Pereira da Costa N, Bauer Veeck E. Optical density and chemical composition of microfilled and microhybrid composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008; 16: 132-6.         [ Links ]

11. Erdogan O, Incki KK, Benlidayi ME, Seydaoglu G, Kelekci S. Dental and radiographic findings as predictors of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2009; 9: 155-64.         [ Links ]

12. Goga R, Chandler NP, Love RM. Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33: 103-7.         [ Links ]

13. Graziottin LF, Da Costa NP, Da Silveira ID, Veeck EB. Measurement of the optical density of packable composites: comparison between direct and indirect digital systems. Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2002; 16: 299-307.         [ Links ]

14. Attaelmanan A, Borg E, Grõndahl HG. Digitisation and display of intra-oral films. Dentomaxillof Radiol. 2000; 29: 97-102.         [ Links ]

15. Janhom A, Van Ginkel FC, Van Amerongen JP, Van Der Stelt PF. Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillof Radiol. 2001; 30: 166-71.         [ Links ]

16. Parissis N, Kondylidou-Sidira A, Tsirlis A, Patias P. Convencional radiographs: image quality assessment. Dentomaxillof Radiol. 2005; 34: 353-6.         [ Links ]

17. Wenzel A, Kirkevang LL. High resolution charge-coupled device sensor vs. medium resolution photostimulable phosphor plate digital receptors for detection of root fractures in vitro. Dent Traumatol. 2005; 21: 32-6.         [ Links ]

18. Schulze RK, Richter A, d'Hoedt B. The effect of wavelet and discrete cosine transform compression of digital radiographs on the detection of subtle proximal caries. ROC analysis. Caries Res. 2008; 42: 334-9.         [ Links ]

19. Gürdal P, Hildebolt CF, Akdeniz BG. The effects of different image file formats and image-analysis software programs on dental radiometric digital evaluations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30: 50-5.         [ Links ]

20. Fidler A, Likar B, Skaleric¡ U. Lossy JPEG compression: easy to compress, hard to compare. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35: 67-73.         [ Links ]

21. Berkhout WE, Verheij JG, Syriopoulos K, Li G, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF. Detection of proximal caries with high-resolution and standard resolution digital radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36: 204-10.         [ Links ]

22. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. Image quality. In: Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM, editors. The essential physics of medical imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 255-91.         [ Links ]

 

 

 

Correspondence to:
Matheus Lima de Oliveira
Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas UNICAMP - 13414-903, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Phone / Fax : 55-19-21065327
E-mail: matheusoliveira@hotmail.com

Received for publication: November 19, 2009
Accepted: August 25, 2010