Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of digital noise reduction on the accuracy of endodontic file length determination

  • Mehdizadeh, Mojdeh (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Khademi, Abbas Ali (Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Shokraneh, Ali (Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Farhadi, Nastaran (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2013.02.11
  • Accepted : 2013.03.09
  • Published : 2013.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the measurement accuracy of endodontic file length on periapical digital radiography after application of noise reduction digital enhancement. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five human single-rooted permanent teeth with canals measuring 20-24 mm in length were selected. ISO #08 endodontic files were placed in the root canals of the teeth. The file lengths were measured with a digital caliper as the standard value. Standard periapical digital images were obtained using the Digora digital radiographic system and a dental X-ray unit. In order to produce the enhanced images, the noise reduction option was applied. Two blinded radiologists measured the file lengths on the original and enhanced images. The measurements were compared by repeated measures ANOVA and the Bonferroni test (${\alpha}=0.05$). Results: Both the original and enhanced digital images provided significantly longer measurements compared with the standard value (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the measurement accuracy of the original and enhanced images (P>0.05). Conclusion: Noise reduction digital enhancement did not influence the measurement accuracy of the length of the thin endodontic files on the digital periapical radiographs despite the fact that noise reduction could result in the elimination of fine details of the images.

Keywords

References

  1. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Bosmans H. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 2637-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1836-1
  2. Gormez O, Yilmaz HH. Image post-processing in dental practice. Eur J Dent 2009; 3: 343-7.
  3. Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002; 3: 23-39.
  4. Almenar García A, Forner Navarro L, Ubet Castelló V, Mi-nana Laliga R. Evaluation of a digital radiography to estimate working length. J Endod 1997; 23: 363-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80183-5
  5. Kositbowornchai S, Nuansakul R, Sikram S, Sinahawattana S, Saengmontri S. Root fracture detection: a comparison of direct digital radiography with conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 106-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600587
  6. Kamburoglu K, Barenboim SF, Kaffe I. 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 Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 790-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.030
  7. Borg E, Grondahl K, Persson LG, Grondahl HG. Marginal bone level around implants assessed in digital and film radiographs: in vivo study in the dog. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2: 10-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00102.x
  8. Syriopoulos K, Sanderink GC, Velders XL, van der Stelt PF. Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 312-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600553
  9. Akdeniz B, Sogur E. An ex vivo comparison of conventional and digital radiography for perceived image quality of root fillings. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00958.x
  10. Naoum HJ, Chandler NP, Love RM. Conventional versus storage phosphor-plate digital images to visualize the root canal system contrasted with a radiopaque medium. J Endod 2003; 29: 349-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200305000-00008
  11. Kavadella A, Karayiannis A, Nicopoulou-Karayianni K. Detectability of experimental peri-implant cancellous bone lesions using conventional and direct digital radiography. Aust Dent J 2006; 51: 180-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00424.x
  12. Mohtavipour ST, Dalili Z, Azar NG. Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals. Imaging Sci Dent 2011; 41: 7-10. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.7
  13. Li G. Comparative investigation of subjective image quality of digital intraoral radiographs processed with 3 image-processing algorithms. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 97: 762-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.02.072
  14. van der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 1379-87. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0051
  15. van der Stelt PF. Better imaging: the advantages of digital radiography. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139 Suppl: 7S-13S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0357
  16. Brüllmann DD, Rohrig B, Sulayman SL, Schulze R. Length of endodontic files measured in digital radiographs with and without noise-suppression filters: an ex-vivo study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 170-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/84700141
  17. Castro V, Katz J, Hardman P, Glaros A, Spencer P. In vitro comparison of conventional film and direct digital imaging in the detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 138-42. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15558921
  18. Eickholz P, Riess T, Lenhard M, Hassfeld S, Staehle HJ. Digital radiography of interproximal bone loss; validity of different filters. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 294-300. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.1999.260506.x
  19. Kal BI, Baksi BG, Dündar N, Sen BH. Effect of various digital processing algorithms on the measurement accuracy of endodontic file length. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103: 280-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.06.001
  20. Koob A, Sanden E, Hassfeld S, Staehle HJ, Eickholz P. Effect of digital filtering on the measurement of the depth of proximal caries under different exposure conditions. Am J Dent 2004; 17: 388-93.
  21. Sund T, Møystad A. Sliding window adaptive histogram equalization of intraoral radiographs: effect on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 133-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/21936923
  22. Moystad A, Svanaes DB, Risnes S, Larheim TA, Grondahl HG. Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996; 25: 202-6.
  23. Raitz R, Assuncao Junior JN, Fenyo-Pereira M, Correa L, de Lima LP. Assessment of using digital manipulation tools for diagnosing mandibular radiolucent lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 203-10. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/78567773
  24. Shrout MK, Russell C, Potter B, Powell B, Hildebolt C. Digital enhancement of radiographs: can it improve caries diagnosis? J Am Dent Assoc 1996; 127: 469-73. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0238
  25. de Molon RS, Morais-Camillo JA, Sakakura CE, Ferreira MG, Loffredo LC, Scaf G. Measurements of simulated periodontal bone defects in inverted digital image and film-based radiograph: an in vitro study. Imaging Sci Dent 2012; 42: 243-7. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2012.42.4.243
  26. Davies ER. Edge location shifts produced by median filters: theoretical bounds and experimental results. Signal Processing 1989; 16: 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1684(89)90089-3
  27. Davies ER. Median and mean filters produce similar shifts on curved boundaries. Electron Lett 1991; 27: 826-8. https://doi.org/10.1049/el:19910518
  28. Davies ER. Formulation of an accurate discrete theory of median shifts. Signal Processing 2003; 83: 531-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1684(02)00454-1
  29. Haak R, Wicht MJ. Grey-scale reversed radiographic display in the detection of approximal caries. J Dent 2005; 33: 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.08.003
  30. Xu Y, Lai EM. Restoration of images contaminated by mixed Gaussian and impulse noise using a recursive minimum-maximum method. IEE Proc Vis Image Signal Process 1998; 145: 264-70. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-vis:19981995
  31. Nair MK, Nair UP. Digital and advanced imaging in endodontics: a review. J Endod 2007; 33: 1-6.
  32. Brullmann D, Witzel V, Willershausen B, d'Hoedt B. Effect of digital noise filters on diagnostic radiographs for the diagnosis of experimental root fractures. Int J Comput Dent 2008; 11: 107-14.
  33. Yalcinkaya S, Kunzel A, Willers R, Thoms M, Becker J. Subjective image quality of digitally filtered radiographs acquired by the Durr Vistascan system compared with conventional radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101: 643-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.08.003
  34. Naslund EB, Moystad A, Larheim TA, Ogaard B, Kruger M. Cephalometric analysis with digital storage phosphor images: extreme low-exposure images with and without postprocessing noise reduction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 190-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00304-4
  35. Mehdizadeh M, Khademi AA, Nasr N. Canal length measurement by digital radiography and conventional parallel radiography. Res J Biol Sci 2010; 5: 400-3. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjbsci.2010.400.403
  36. Williams CB, Joyce AP, Roberts S. A comparison between in vivo radiographic working length determination and measurement after extraction. J Endod 2006; 32: 624-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.044
  37. Schmitd LB, Lima Tde C, Chinellato LE, Bramante CM, Garcia RB, de Moraes IG, et al. Comparison of radiographic measurements obtained with conventional and indirect digital imaging during endontic treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16: 167-70. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000200016
  38. Brito-Junior M, Santos LA, Baleeiro EN, Pego MM, Eleuterio NB, Camilo CC. Linear measurements to determine working length of curved canals with fine files: conventional versus digital radiography. J Oral Sci 2009; 51: 559-64. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.51.559
  39. Macdonald R. Digital imaging for dentists. Aust Dent J 2001; 46: 301-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2001.tb00295.x

Cited by

  1. Measurement of Length of a Single Tooth Using PCA-Signature and Bezier Curve vol.ea97, pp.11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1587/transfun.e97.a.2161
  2. Accuracy of Working Length Determination in Root Canal Treatment Using Different Algorithms vol.8, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17795/ajdr-27246