Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of viewing conditions on the performance assessment of different computer monitors used for dental diagnostics

  • Hastie, Thomas (University of Western Australia, Dental School and Oral Health Centre of Western Australia) ;
  • Venske-Parker, Sascha (University of Western Australia, Dental School and Oral Health Centre of Western Australia) ;
  • Aps, Johan K.M. (School of Oral Hygiene, Artevelde University of Applied Sciences)
  • Received : 2020.07.09
  • Accepted : 2020.11.17
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the computer monitors used for analysis and interpretation of digital radiographs within the clinics of the Oral Health Centre of Western Australia. Materials and Methods: In total, 135 computer monitors(3 brands, 6 models) were assessed by analysing the same radiographic image of a combined 13-step aluminium step wedge and the Artinis CDDent 1.0® (Artinis Medical Systems B.V.®, Elst, the Netherlands) test object. The number of steps and cylindrical objects observed on each monitor was recorded along with the monitor's make, model, position relative to the researcher's eye level, and proximity to the nearest window. The number of window panels blocked by blinds, the outside weather conditions, and the number of ceiling lights over the surgical suite/cubicle were also recorded. MedCalc® version 19.2.1 (MedCalc Software Ltd®, Ostend, Belgium, https://www.medcalc.org; 2020) was used for statistical analyses(Kruskal-Wallis test and stepwise regression analysis). The level of significance was set at P<0.05. Results: Stepwise regression analysis showed that only the monitor brand and proximity of the monitor to a window had a significant impact on the monitor's performance (P<0.05). The Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences (P<0.05) in monitor performance for all variables investigated, except for the weather and the clinic in which the monitors were placed. Conclusion: The vast performance variation present between computer monitors implies the need for a review of monitor selection, calibration, and viewing conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. Hamid MK, Singer SR. Challenges associated with digital radiology in dentistry. EC Dent Sci 2017; 13: 13-23.
  2. Krupinski EA, Williams MB, Andriole K, Strauss KJ, Applegate K, Wyatt M, et al. Digital radiography image quality: image processing and display. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.02.001
  3. Sorantin E. Soft-copy display and reading: what the radiologist should know in the digital era. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38: 1276-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-008-0898-6
  4. Countryman SC, Sousa Melo SL, Belem MD, Haiter-Neto F, Vargas MA, Allareddy V. Performance of 5 different displays in the detection of artificial incipient and recurrent caries-like lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2018; 125: 182-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.11.004
  5. Lowe JM, Brennan PC, Evanoff MG, McEntee MF. Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 181-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2851
  6. Pakkala T, Kuusela L, Ekholm M, Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Kortesniemi M. Effect of varying displays and room illuminance on caries diagnostic accuracy in digital dental radiographs. Caries Res 2012; 46: 568-74. https://doi.org/10.1159/000341218
  7. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 2005; 32: 1205-25. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1861159
  8. Cruz AD, Lobo IC, Lemos AL, Aguiar MF. Evaluation of low-contrast perceptibility in dental restorative materials under the influence of ambient light conditions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140360. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140360
  9. Hellen-Halme K, Lith A. Carious lesions: diagnostic accuracy using pre-calibrated monitor in various ambient light levels: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130071. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130071
  10. Hellen-Halme K, Petersson A, Warfvinge G, Nilsson M. Effect of ambient light and monitor brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 380-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/26038913
  11. Ohla H, Dagassan-Berndt D, Payer M, Filippi A, Schulze RKW, Kuhl S. Role of ambient light in the detection of contrast elements in digital dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2018; 126: 439-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.08.003
  12. Pollard BJ, Chawla AS, Delong DM, Hashimoto N, Samei E. Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions. Med Phys 2008; 35: 2204-13. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2907566
  13. Schriewer T, Schulze R, Filippi A, Mischak I, Payer M, Dagassan-Berndt D, et al. The influence of ambient lighting on the detection of small contrast elements in digital dental radiographs. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1727-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0858-2
  14. European Society of Radiology. Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2011; 2: 93-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0066-7
  15. Butt A, Mahoney M, Savage N. The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review. Aust Dent J 2012; 57: 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01660.x
  16. Shujaat S, Letelier C, De Grauwe A, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Celikten B, Jacobs R. Observer preference for a dedicated medical display vs a standard screen in the detection of dental radioanatomic features. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 130: 217-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2020.02.011
  17. McIlgorm D. Viewing your digital radiographs: which monitor is best? Br Dent J 2016; 220: 393-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.293
  18. Araki K, Fujikura M, Sano T. Effect of display monitor devices on intra-oral radiographic caries diagnosis. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 1875-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1401-z
  19. Kallio-Pulkkinen S, Haapea M, Liukkonen E, Huumonen S, Tervonen O, Nieminen MT. Comparison of consumer grade, tablet and 6MP-displays: observer performance in detection of anatomical and pathological structures in panoramic radiographs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118: 135-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.04.005
  20. Sim L, Manthey K, Stuckey S. Comparison of performance of computer display monitors for radiological diagnosis; "diagnostic" high brightness monochrome LCD, 3MP vs "clinical review" colour LCD, 2MP. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2007; 30: 101-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03178413
  21. Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Effect of monitors 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 2009; 107: 716-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.011
  22. Butt A, Savage NW. Digital display monitor performance in general dental practice. Aust Dent J 2015; 60: 240-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12327
  23. NEMA. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) part 14: grayscale standard display function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association standards and guidelines publications. 2011. http://dicom.nema.org/Dicom/2011/11_14pu.pdf
  24. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Standards of Practice for Clinical Radiology. RANZCR. 2020; Version 11.2. file://uniwa.uwa.edu.au/userhome/staff8/00095078/Downloads/StandardsofPracticeforClinicalRadiologyv11.2.pdf
  25. Greenall C, Drage N, Ager M. Quality assurance tests for digital radiography in general dental practice. Dent Update 2014; 41: 126-34. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2014.41.2.126
  26. Cruz AD, Castro MC, Aguiar MF, Guimaraes LS, Gomes CC. Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2018; 47: 20170372.
  27. Fostervold KI, Aaras A, Lie I. Work with visual display units: long-term health effects of high and downward line-of-sight in ordinary office environments. Int J Ind Ergon 2006; 36: 331-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2005.05.003
  28. Van Vledder N, Louw Q. The effect of a workstation chair and computer screen height adjustment on neck and upper back musculoskeletal pain and sitting comfort in office workers. South African J Physiother 2015; 71: 279.
  29. Standards Association of Australia. Screen-based workstations, Part 2: Workstation furniture (AS 3590, 2-1990). 1990. https://www.saiglobal.com/pdftemp/previews/osh/as/as3000/3500/35902.pdf
  30. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals(VDTs) - workplace requirements (ISO 9241-3). 1992. https://www.iso.org/standard/16875.html
  31. NIOSH. NIOSH Publications on Video Display Terminals. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 3rd edn. 1999:1-141. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-135/pdfs/99-135.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB99135
  32. Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Digital radiography in general dental practice: a field study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 249-55. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/95125494
  33. Hellen-Halme K, Hellen-Halme B, Wenzel A. The effect of aging on luminance of standard liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: 237-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.02.044
  34. Grassl U, Schulze RKW. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103: 694-701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.04.005
  35. LG Electronics'. LG LED Monitor M45. Available from: https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-24M45HQ
  36. LG Electronics'. 24" Class Full HD 2ms LED Monitors (23.5" Diagonal). Available from: https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24M47VQ-P-led-monitor
  37. HP Development Company LP. HP EliteDisplay E243 23.8-inch Monitor. Available from: https://h20386.www2.hp.com/AustraliaStore/Merch/Product.aspx?id=1FH47AA&opt=&sel=MTO
  38. HP Development Company LP. HP Compaq LA1951g 19-inch LCD Monitor Product Specifications. Available from: https://support.hp.com/th-en/document/c01901657
  39. HP Development Company LP. 19-inch LCD Monitor Specifications - L1910 Model.
  40. GIGA-BYTE Technology Co Ltd. P57W. Available from: https://www.gigabyte.com/au/Laptop/P57W/sp#sp
  41. Barco. Eonis 24" (MDRC-2324). Available from: https://www.barco.com/en/product/mdrc-2324