Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of enhancement filters of a CMOS system on halo artifact expression at the bone-to-implant interface

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess the impact of enhancement filters on the formation of halo artifacts in radiographs of dental implants obtained with a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) system.

Methods

Digital radiographs of dental implants placed in dry human mandibles were processed with the Noise Reduction smoothing filter, as well as the Sharpen 1, Sharpen 4, and Sharpen UM high-pass filters available in the CLINIVIEW™ software (Instrumentarium Dental, Tuusula, Finland). Subjective analysis involved evaluating the left, right, and apical surfaces of each implant for the presence of much, few, or no halo. The objective analysis involved measurement of the halo area using the Trainable Weka Segmentation plugin (ImageJ, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Data were analyzed using Friedman’s test (subjective analysis) and ANOVA (objective analysis) (α = 5%).

Results

In the subjective evaluation, the Sharpen 4 filter produced more radiographs with much halo present, and in the objective evaluation, a bigger halo area when compared to the original images and the Noise Reduction filter for all surfaces (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

When evaluating dental implants, priority should be given to original images and those enhanced with smoothing filters since they exhibit fewer halo artifacts.

Clinical relevance

Post-processing tools, such as enhancement filters, may improve the image quality and assist some diagnostic tasks. However, little is known regarding the impact of enhancement filters in halo formation on CMOS systems, which have been increasingly used in dental offices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Haiter-Neto F, Spinelli Casanova M, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A (2009) Task-specific enhancement filters in storage phosphor images from the Vistascan system for detection of proximal caries lesions of known size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.09.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Rovaris K, Campos PSF, Haiter-Neto F (2013) Filtros de imagem em radiografia digital. Rev Bras Pesq Saúde 15:137–143

    Google Scholar 

  3. De-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Neves FS, Figueirêdo EP, Haiter-Neto F, Campos PSF (2013) Accuracy of enhancement filters in measuring in vitro peri-implant bone level. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:1074–1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02511.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haiter-Neto F, dos Anjos PA, Frydenberg M, Wenzel A (2008) Detection of non-cavitated approximal caries lesions in digital images from seven solid-state receptors with particular focus on task-specific enhancement filters. An ex vivo study in human teeth. Clin Oral Investig 12:217–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0173-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kamburòlu K, Murat S, Pehlivan SY (2010) The effects of digital image enhancement on the detection of vertical root fracture. Dent Traumatol 26:47–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2009.00841.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kositbowornchai S, Basiw M, Promwang Y, Moragorn H, Sooksuntisakoonchai N (2004) Accuracy of diagnosing occlusal caries using enhanced digital images. Dentomaxillofac Rad 33:236–240. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/94305126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brettle D, Carmichael F (2011) The impact of digital image processing artefacts mimicking pathological features associated with restorations. Br Dent J 211:167–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vidor MM, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, Da Silveira H, Da Silveira PF, Araujo CW et al (2017) Imaging evaluating of the implant/bone interface—an in vitro radiographic study. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 46:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang B, Allebach JP (2008) Adaptive bilateral filter for sharpness enhancement and noise removal. IEEE Trans Image Process 17:664–678. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2008.919949

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schweitzer DM, Berg RW (2010) A digital radiographic artifact: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 103:326–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)00082-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, Vizzotto MB, Da Silveira PF, Silveira HED, Wenzel A (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital radiography for detecting misfit between the tooth and restoration in metal-restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent 113:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yalcinkaya S, Künzel A, Willers R, Thoms M, Becker J (2006) Subjective image quality of digitally filtered radiographs acquired by the Dürr Vistascan system compared with conventional radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101:643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.08.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wenzel A, Møystad A (2010) Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 68:106–114. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016350903514426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Neto JDP, Melo G, Marin C, Rivero ERC, Cruz ACC, Flores-Mir C et al (2021) Diagnostic performance of periapical and panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography for detection of circumferential gaps simulating osseointegration failure around dental implants: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 132:208–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Oliveira B, Valerio C, Jansen W, Zenóbio E, Manzi F (2016). Accuracy of digital versus conventional periapical radiographs to detect misfit at the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1023–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4525.

  16. Arganda-Carreras I, Kaynig V, Rueden C, Eliceiri KW, Schindelin J, Cardona A et al (2017) Trainable Weka Segmentation: a machine learning tool for microscopy pixel classification. Bioinformatics 33:2424–2436. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Szklo M, Nieto FJ (2000) Quality assurance and control. In: Szklo M, Nieto FJ (eds) Epidemiology: beyond the basics, 1st edn. Aspen, Maryland, Aspen, pp 343–404

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chiu HL, Lin SH, Chen CH, Wang WC, Chen JY, Chen YK et al (2008) Analysis of photostimulable phosphor plate image artifacts in an oral and maxillofacial radiology department. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:749–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gomes AF, Nejaim Y, Fontenele RC, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ (2019) Influence of the incorporation of a lead foil to intraoral digital receptors on the image quality and root fracture diagnosis. Dentomaxillofac Rad 48:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Solomon SL, Gilbert R, Glazer HS, Sagel SS, Anderson DJ, Molina PL (1991) Artifacts in computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 157:181–186. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.157.1.2048517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shetty CM, Barthur A, Kambadakone A, Narayanan N, Kv R (2011) Computed radiography image artifacts revisited. Am J Roentgenol 196:37–47. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Clark JL, Wadhwani CP, Abramovitch K, Rice DD, Kattadiyil MT (2018) Effect of image sharpening on radiographic image quality. J Prosthet Dent 120:927–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cesar LJ, Zink FE, Daly TR, Taubel JP, Jorgenson LL (2001) Artefacts found in computed radiography. Br J Radiol 74:195–202. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.74.878.740195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shrout MK, Russell CM, Potter BJ, Powell BJ, Hildebolt CF (1996) Digital enhancement of radiographs: can it improve caries diagnosis. J Am Dent Assoc 127:469–473. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Instrumentarium dental (2021) CLINIVIEW™ 11. User Manual, vol 32. https://www.dentalimaging.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/IFU_CLINIVIEW-11_USER-MANUAL_212520-R7_EN-WW.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2024

Download references

Funding

This study was financed in part by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq (scholarship). This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001 (scholarship). The authors are thankful to the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo – FAPES (007/2014 and 22/2018) for providing scholarships and the X-ray devices used in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil

    Manuella Soussa Braga & Ana Maria de Almeida Ramos

  2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil

    Fernanda Coelho-Silva

  3. Dental Sciences Graduate Program, Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES), Av. Marechal Campos 1468, Maruípe, Vitória, Espírito Santo, 29043900, Brazil

    Eduarda Alberti Bonadiman & Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz

  4. Departament of Clinical Dentistry, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil

    Teresa Cristina Rangel Pereira

Authors
  1. Manuella Soussa Braga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Maria de Almeida Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernanda Coelho-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eduarda Alberti Bonadiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Teresa Cristina Rangel Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors actively participated in discussing the manuscript’s findings and have revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. • Manuella Soussa Braga: investigation (lead), writing—original draft (lead), visualization (equal), methodology (equal), conceptualization (equal), funding acquisition (equal). • Ana Maria de Almeida Ramos: investigation (equal), methodology (equal), conceptualization (equal), writing—original draft (supporting), funding acquisition (supporting). • Fernanda Coelho-Silva: writing—review and editing (lead), formal analysis (equal), visualization (equal), writing—original draft (equal), data curation (equal), conceptualization (supporting), validation (supporting), supervision (supporting). • Eduarda Alberti Bonadiman: writing—review and editing (lead), formal analysis (equal), visualization (equal), writing—original draft (equal), conceptualization (supporting), supervision (supporting). • Teresa Cristina Rangel Pereira: project administration (lead), funding acquisition (lead), conceptualization (equal), supervision (equal), resources (equal), methodology (equal), writing—review and editing (supporting). • Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz: conceptualization (lead), methodology (lead), validation (lead), formal analysis (lead), data curation (lead), supervision (lead), resources (lead), writing—review and editing (equal), project administration (equal), funding acquisition (equal).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergio Lins de-Azevedo-Vaz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted after approval by the local Research Ethics Committee (protocol #05675718.8.0000.5060). The study did not have participants to sign a consent form.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braga, M.S., de Almeida Ramos, A.M., Coelho-Silva, F. et al. Impact of enhancement filters of a CMOS system on halo artifact expression at the bone-to-implant interface. Clin Oral Invest 28, 161 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05553-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05553-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation