Ink-jet Printout of Radiographs on Transparent Film and Glossy Paper Versus Monitor Display: an ROC Analysis

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2010 Mar 23

PMID 20306098

Citations 2

Authors

Sebastian Kuhl

Frank Krummenauer

Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt

Thomas J Lambrecht

Bernd dHoedt

Ralf Kurt Willy Schulze

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the depiction ability of small grayscale contrasts in ink-jet printouts of digital radiographs on different print media with CRT monitor. A CCD-based digital cephalometric image of a stepless aluminum wedge containing 50 bur holes of different depth was cut into 100 isometric images. Each image was printed on glossy paper and on transparent film by means of a high-resolution desktop inkjet printer at specific settings. The printed images were viewed under standardized conditions, and the perceptibility of the bur holes was evaluated and compared to the perceptibility on a 17-in CRT monitor. Thirty observers stated their blinded decision on a five-point confidence scale. Areas (Az) under receiver operating characteristics curves were calculated and compared using the pair wise sign tests. Overall agreement was estimated using Cohen's kappa device and observer bias using McNemar's test. Glossy paper prints and monitor display revealed significantly higher (P < 0.001) average Az values (0.83) compared to prints on transparent film (0.79), which was caused by higher sensitivity. Specificity was similar for all modalities. The sensitivity was dependent on the mean gray scale values for the transparent film.

Citing Articles

Disposable Paper-Based Biosensors for the Point-of-Care Detection of Hazardous Contaminations-A Review.

Bordbar M, Sheini A, Hashemi P, Hajian A, Bagheri H Biosensors (Basel). 2021; 11(9).

PMID: 34562906 PMC: 8464915. DOI: 10.3390/bios11090316.

The influence of ambient lighting on the detection of small contrast elements in digital dental radiographs.

Schriewer T, Schulze R, Filippi A, Mischak I, Payer M, Dagassan-Berndt D Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(7):1727-31.

PMID: 23053708 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0858-2.

References

Lyttkens K, Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, Andersson B, Ebbesen A, Hochbergs P . Evaluation of the image quality of ink-jet printed paper copies of digital chest radiographs as compared with film: a receiver operating characteristic study. J Digit Imaging. 1994; 7(2):61-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF03168424. View

Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, Nilsson J, Lyttkens K, Andersson B, Holmer N . Demonstration of digital radiographs by means of ink jet-printed paper copies: pilot study. J Digit Imaging. 1992; 5(4):246-51. DOI: 10.1007/BF03167806. View

Bley T, Kotter E, Saueressig U, Springer O, Fisch D, Ghanem N . Using receiver operating characteristic methodology to evaluate the diagnostic quality of radiography on paper prints versus film. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181(6):1487-90. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.6.1811487. View

Bednarek D, Rudin S . Blurred-mask density compression for improved reproduction of radiographs. Invest Radiol. 1991; 26(4):358-63. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199104000-00014. View

Schulze R, Schulze D, Voss K, Rottner M, Keller H, Dollmann K . Quality of individually calibrated customary printers for assessment of typical dental diagnoses on glossy paper prints: a multicenter pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(4):578-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.09.004. View

Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Pauwels H, Jacobs R . Subjective image quality of digital panoramic radiographs displayed on monitor and printed on various hardcopy media. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 8(1):25-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-003-0239-y. View

Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

Benediktsdottir I, Wenzel A . Accuracy of digital panoramic images displayed on monitor, glossy paper, and film for assessment of mandibular third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 98(2):217-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.021. View

Geissler O, Rother U . The film-based printout using Tetenal Printing Solution II. Int J Comput Dent. 2008; 10(3):285-91. View

10.

Weinstein L, Fitzer P . Detail enhancement in prints of radiographs. Use of a linear radial transmission filter. Radiology. 1975; 115(3):726-8. DOI: 10.1148/15.3.726. View

11.

Combs M, Snell J, Cail W, Maier T, Buck D . The gray-scale ink-jet printer: value in making hard copies of digital images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164(1):225-7. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.164.1.7998544. View

12.

Wenzel A . Matters to consider when implementing direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int J Comput Dent. 2001; 2(4):269-90. View

13.

Goodman L, Wilson C, Foley W . Digital radiography of the chest: promises and problems [publihsed erratum appears in AJR 1988 Sep;151(3):preceding 641]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 150(6):1241-52. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.150.6.1241. View

14.

Otis L, Sherman R . Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph. Film versus print. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136(3):323-30. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0172. View