Top

Published in:

01-06-2011 | Original Article

Ink-jet printout of radiographs on transparent film and glossy paper versus monitor display: an ROC analysis

Authors: Sebastian Kühl, Frank Krummenauer, Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt, Thomas J. Lambrecht, Bernd d’Hoedt, Ralf Kurt Willy Schulze

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 3/2011

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.

Geissler O, Rother U (2007) The film-based printout using tetenal printing solution II. Int J Comput Dent 10:285–291PubMed

Wenzel A (1999) Matters to consider when implementing direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int J Comput Dent 2:269–290PubMed

Schulze RKW, Schulze D, Voss K, Rottner M, Keller H-P, Dollmann K, Maager B, Wedel M (2008) 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 106:578–586PubMedCrossRef

Combs MJ, Snell J, Cail WS, Maier T, Buck DA (1995) The gray-scale ink jet printer: value in making hard copies of digital images. Am J Roentgenol 164:225–227

Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, Nilsson J, Lyttkens K, Andersson B, Holmer N-G (1994) Demonstration of digital radiographs by means of ink jet-printed paper copies: pilot study. J Digit Imaging 5:246–251CrossRef

Lyttkens K, Kirkhorn T, Kehler M, Andersson B, Ebbesen A, Hochbergs P, Jarlman O, Lindberg C-G, Holmer N-G (1994) 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 7:61–68PubMedCrossRef

Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Pauwels H, Jacobs R (2004) Subjective image quality of digital panoramic radiographs displayed on monitor and printed on various hardcopy media. Clin Oral Investig 8:25–29PubMedCrossRef

Otis L, Sherman RG (2005) Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph. Film versus print. J Am Dent Assoc 136:323–300PubMed

Goodman LR, Wilson CR, Foley WD (1988) Digital radiography of the chest: promises and problems. Am J Roentgenol 150:1241–1252

10.

Weinstein LM, Fitzer MS, Fitzer PM (1975) Detail enhancement in prints of radiographs. use of a linear radial transmission filter. Radiology 115:726–728PubMed

11.

Bley TA, Kotter E, Saueressig U, Springer OS, Fisch D, Ghanem NA, Langer M (2003) Using receiver operating characteristic methodology to evaluate the diagnostic quality of radiography on paper print versus film. AJR Am Roentgenol 181:1487–1490

12.

Bednarek DR, Rudin S (1991) Blurred-mask density compression for improved reproduction of radiographs. Invest Radiol 26:358–363PubMedCrossRef

13.

Benediktsdottir I, Wenzel A (2004) 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 98:217–222PubMedCrossRef

14.

Agresti A (1989) An agreement model with kappa as parameter. Stat Probab Lett 7:271–273CrossRef

15.

Hubert L, Golledge RG (1983) Rater agreement for complex assessments. Brit J Math Stat Psychol 36:207–216

16.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef

Title: Ink-jet printout of radiographs on transparent film and glossy paper versus monitor display: an ROC analysis
Authors: Sebastian Kühl
Frank Krummenauer
Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt
Thomas J. Lambrecht
Bernd d’Hoedt
Ralf Kurt Willy Schulze
Publication date: 01-06-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0400-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Ink-jet printout of radiographs on transparent film and glossy paper versus monitor display: an ROC analysis

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Toluidine blue color perception in identification of oral mucosal lesions

MAGE-A antigens in lesions of the oral mucosa

The diffusion kinetics of a nanofilled and a midifilled resin composite immersed in distilled water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid

Conservative restoration of severely damaged endodontically treated premolar teeth: a FEM study

Microsatellite GT polymorphism in intron 2 of human Toll-like receptor (TLR) 2 gene and susceptibility to periodontitis

Surface characterization of passive film and elemental release analysis of a Ni–Cr alloy during bleaching, part I: effects of different bleaching agents