Effect of brightness and contrast variation for detectability of root resorption lesions in digital intraoral radiographs
- 58 Downloads
To evaluate the performance of periapical radiography assessed under different radiographic brightness and contrast variations in the detection of simulated internal (IRR) and external (ERR) root resorption lesions. Additionally, observers’ preferences related to image quality for these diagnostic tasks were evaluated.
Thirty single-root teeth were divided into two groups (n = 15): IRR, in which lesions were simulated using mechanical and biochemical processes; and ERR, in which cavities standardized with drills of different sizes were performed on the root surfaces. Digital radiographs were obtained and subsequently adjusted in 4 additional combinations, resulting in 5 brightness/contrast variations (V1–V5). Five radiologists evaluated the radiographs. The observers’ preference on the image quality was also recorded.
For both conditions, there were no differences in the accuracy and specificity between the five brightness/contrast variations (p > 0.05), but the sensitivity for ERR was significantly lower in V4 (+ 15% brightness/−15% contrast) in the large size (p < 0.05). The observers classified V2 (− 15% brightness/+15% contrast) as the “best” image quality for IRR and ERR evaluation.
For IRR and ERR lesions, brightness and contrast variation does not affect the diagnostic performance of digital intraoral radiography within the tested range. The observers prefer images with a reasonable decrease in brightness and increase in contrast.
Brightness and contrast enhancement tools are commonly applied in digital radiographic assessment. The use of these tools for detection of root resorptions can be applied according to the observer preference without influence on diagnostic accuracy.
KeywordsEndodontics Digital radiography Radiographic image enhancement Root resorption
The work was supported by the Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional Research Ethics Committee of the Piracicaba Dental School, UNICAMP (#2.057.024), and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 10.Kamburoǧlu K, Barenboim SF, Kaffe I (2008) Comparison of conventional film with different digital and digitally filtered images in the detection of simulated internal resorption cavities-an ex vivo study in human cadaver jaws. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 105:790–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kamburoǧlu K, Tsesis I, Kfir A, Kaffe I (2008) Diagnosis of artificially induced external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, and PSP: an ex vivo study. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 106:885–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kumar V, Gossett L, Blattner A, Iwasaki LR, Williams K, Nickel JC (2011) Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:e533–e541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Neves FS, Vasconcelos TV, Vaz SLA, Freitas DQ, Haiter-Neto F (2012) Evaluation of reconstructed images with different voxel sizes of acquisition in the diagnosis of simulated external root resorption using cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 45:234–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01966.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Creanga AG, Geha H, Sankar V, Teixeira FB, McMahan CA, Noujeim M (2015) Accuracy of digital periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in detecting external root resorption. Imaging Sci Dent 45:153–158. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.3.153 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Durack C, Patel S, Davies J, Wilson R, Mannocci F (2011) Diagnostic accuracy of small volume cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiography for the detection of simulated external inflammatory root resorption. Int Endod J 44:136–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01819.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, Horner K, Mannocci F (2009) The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography - an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J 42:831–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01592.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Ono E, Medici Filho E, Faig Leite H, Tanaka JLO, de Moraes MEL, de Melo Castilho JC (2011) Evaluation of simulated external root resorptions with digital radiography and digital subtraction radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Ponder SN, Benavides E, Kapila S, Hatch NE (2013) Quantification of external root resorption by low- vs high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography: a volumetric and linear analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.08.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sousa Melo SL, Belem MDF, Prieto LT, Tabchoury CPM, Haiter-Neto F (2017) Comparison of cone beam computed tomography and digital intraoral radiography performance in the detection of artificially induced recurrent caries-like lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 124:306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.05.469 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar