Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility

Abstract

Objectives: The psychophysical properties of a new complementary metal oxide semiconductor-based detector, ProSensor ® (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), in terms of dose response function and perceptibility curve test were performed and compared with those of a charged couple device-based sensor, Dixi ® (Planmeca Oy). Methods: Dose response functions at 66 kVp for a Dixi and a ProSensor were determined by means of multiple exposures to a homogeneous X-ray field covering the whole exposure range. The entry dose of each exposure was measured and registered. The mean grey level in each image was plotted as function of the corresponding exposures for both digital systems. Radiographs of a test object containing ten holes of increasing depth were obtained throughout the exposure range of the two digital sensors at 66 kVp. 12 observers were asked to register the number of perceptible holes in each radiograph. Based on the mean value of the observers' evaluation, the perceptibility curves were constructed, and the integral value under the perceptibility curves were compared between two intraoral sensors. Results: The results based on dose response function showed that the ProSensor was more sensitive than the Dixi sensor. Paired t-test showed that the minimal perceptible low-contrast details were significantly higher for the ProSensor than for the Dixi sensor (p , 0.001). The integrals below the two perceptibility curves were 33.4 and 69.2 for the Dixi and ProSensor, respectively. Conclusion: Applying the new ProSensor may be beneficial to patients owing to its reduced radiation dose and increased perception for low-contrast details in dentistry.

Radiopacity of endodontic materials using two models for conversion to millimeters of aluminum

“…This could be explained by studies that have shown that CMOS sensors are more sensitive, and allow a higher perception of low contrast detail. 25 The radiopacity of the AH Plus was about 11 mm Al, and there was no significant difference among the methodologies, except for PSP and PTDM, when the grayscale values were converted to absorbance values. A previous study 7 also found no differences in the radiopacity of the AH Plus when digitized films, CCD digital sensor and PSP were used, even though the radiopacity found for this material was 7.8 mm Al.…”

Characteristics of radiographic images acquired with CdTe, CCD and CMOS detectors in skull radiography

“…In addition, these minimal variations may be inherent to the subjective process of cephalometric analysis. Shi et al 8 compared a CMOS detector to a CCD detector and found that the CMOS images allowed for higher accuracy in the perception of low-contrast structures. However, in the present study, for the proposed diagnostic task, no statistically significant difference was observed between the detectors.…”

Repeat analysis of intraoral digital imaging performed by undergraduate students using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor: An institutional case study

“…The use of digital sensors, such as complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOSs) or charge-coupled devices (CCDs), can substantially help in reducing the radiation dose absorbed by patients. 15 Although the indirect type of digital sensor, such as the photostimulable phosphor (PSP), is an alternative in digital systems, it does not outperform CMOSs and CCDs in terms of percentage of correct assessment due to contrast and spatial resolution, 16 17 reliable images for root canal working length estimation, 18 and its performance when coupled with automatic exposure compensation. 19 However, PSPs are preferable in academic institutions, where the monitoring of image repetition is more vigorous compared to CMOS and CCD types.…”