Dental Display QA References

Arnold LV (1987) The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Part II. The influence of viewing conditions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 64(2):232–420.

Araki K1, Fujikura M & Sano T (2015) Effect of display monitor devices on intra-oral radiographic caries diagnosis. Clin Oral Investig Epub.

Barten PGJ (1999) Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. Knegsel, The Netherlands: HV Press.

Berkhout WER, Beuger DA, Sanderink GCH & Van der Stelt PF (2004) The dynamic range of digital radiography systems: dose reduction or risk of exposure? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33(1): 1–5.

Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RV, Thomas JA & Romanyukha A (2003) Effect of room illuminance on monitor black level luminance and monitor calibration. J Digital Imaging 16(4): 350–355.

Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW & Shulman JD (1998) Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 27(5):293–297.

Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW & Shulman JD (1999) Influence of digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28(4): 203– 207.

Fetterly KA, Blume HR, Flynn MJ & Samei E (2008) Introduction to grayscale calibrationand related aspects of medical imaging grade liquid crystal displays. J Digital Imaging 21(2): 193–207.

Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M, Nowak G &Noack MJ (2002) Influence of room lighting on grey-scale perception with a CRT-and a TFT monitor display. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31(3) :193-197.

Hellén-Halme K & Lith A (2012) Effect of ambient light level at the monitor surface on digital radiogaphic evaluation of approximal carious lesions: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(3): 192–196.

Hellén-Halme K & Lith A (2013) Carious lesions: diagnostic accuracy using pre-calibrated monitor in various ambient light levels: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42(8): 1–7.

Hellén-Halme, K, Nilsson M & Petersson A (2007) Digital radiography in general dental practice. A field study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36(5): 249–255.

Hellén-Halme K, Nilsson M & Petersson A (2008) Effect of ambient light and display brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs. An in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37(7): 380–384.

Hellèn-Halme K, Nilsson M & Petersson A (2009) Effect of displays on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs-standard versus precalibrated DICOM Part 14 displays: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107(5): 716–720.

Ilguy M, Dincer S, Ilguy D & Bayirli G (2009) Detection of artificial occlusal caries in a phosphor imaging plate system with two types of LCD monitors versus different films. J Digit Imaging 22(3): 242–249.

Isidor S, Faaborg-Andersen M, Hintze H, Kirkevang LL, Frydenberg M, Haiter-Neto F & Wenzel A (2009) Effect of display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38(8): 53–541.

Kim TY, Choi JW, Lee SS, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Heo MS, & Choi SC (2011) Effect of LCD display type and observer experience on diagnostic performance in soft-copy interpretations of the maxillary sinus on panoramic radiographs. Imaging Sci Dent 41(1): 11–16.

Kutcher M, Kalathingal S, Ludlow JB, Abreu M & Enrique Platin (2006) The effect of lighting conditions on caries interpretation with a laptop computer in a clinical setting. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102(4): 537–543.

Ludlow JB & Abreu M Jr 1999 Performance of film, desktop display and laptop displays in caries detection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28(1): 26–30.

McIlgorm DJ (2013) Could standardizing “commercial off-the-shelf” (COTS) monitors to grading characteristics analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42(9):20130121.

McIlgorm DJ & McNulty JP (2015) DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated medical grade monitor vs a DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated “commercial off-the-shlef” (COTS) monitor for viewing 8-bit dental images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44(3):20140148.

Odlum N, Spalla G, Van Assche N, Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Quirynen M & Marchessoux C (2012) Preliminary display comparison for dental diagnostic applications. Medic Imag; Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology. Assessment, 83181S (February 23, 2012); doi:10.1117/12.917043.

Patel N, Rushton VE, Macfarlane TV & Horner K. The influence of viewing conditions on radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation. Br Dent J 189(1): 40–42.

Pakkala T, Kuusela L, Ekholm M, Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F & Kortesniemi M (2012) Effect of varying displays and room illuminance on caries diagnostic accuracy in digital dental radiographs. Caries Res 46(6): 568–574.

Samei E (2002) New Developments In Display Quality Control. Quality Assurance and Quality Control In Digital Department. Great Falls, VA: So

Samei E (2003) Advances in digital radiography, categorical course syllabus.Samei E (ed). Oak Brook, IL: Radiological society of North America (RSNA) Publication pp 109– 121.

Samei E, Seibert JA, Andriole K, Badano A, Crawford J, Reiner B, Flynn MJ & Chang P (2004) Aapm. Radiographics 24(1): 313–334.

Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley M, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz L, Shepard J, Uzenoff R, Wang J & Willis C (2005a) AAPM TG18 report. Assesment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32(4): 1205–1225.

Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley-Stevens DM, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz, Shepard J, Uzenoff RA, Wang JH & Willis CE (2005b) Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems, Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), Task Group 18, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, AAPM On-Line Report No. 3, April 2005.

Samei E (2005c) AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic.displays. Radiographics 25(2): 491–501.

Shintaku WH, Scarbecz M & Venturin JS (2012) Evaluation of interproximal caries using the Tablet 2 and a liquid crystal display display. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 113(5):e40–e44.

Tofangchiha M, Adel M, Bakhishi M, Esfehani M, Nazeman P, Elizeyi M & Javadi A (2013) Digital radiography with computerized conventional monitors compared to medical monitors in vertical root fracture disgnosis. Iran Endod J 8(1): 14–17.

Want to reduce the amount of radiation you give to your patients and improve the quality of your images?

The Digital Dental Quality Assurance Phantom provides for exposure optimization and image quality assurance for every type of digital intra-oral radiographic system. With this phantom you can ensure that you are using the lowest amount of radiation to produce images of the highest diagnostic quality. The phantom is ADA TR-1094 Report and AAPM TG-175 compliant.

For more information go to the Dental Radiology QA website.

News Update

American Association of Physicist in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 175 releases report entitled “Acceptance Testing and Quality Control of Dental Imaging Equipment”. The intent of this report is to provide useful information and guidance for performing acceptance testing and quality control of dental imaging equipment. It is important to properly perform tests for image quality and safety purposes right after the installation and during routine operation of a dental x-ray unit. Having a quality control (QC) program for dental x-ray facilities is instrumental in ensuring that patients are not receiving excessive radiation during their examination. Recommendations for specific parameter evaluations and practical procedures for quality control evaluations of dental imaging equipment are described. You can download the complete report at http://www.aapm.org/.../RPT_175.pdf