@Article{, title={An evaluation of the Film–Based and Digital Panoramic Radiographic Quality}, author={Rand Shaker Al–Ani}, journal={Al-Rafidain Dental Journal مجلة الرافدين لطب الأسنان}, volume={8}, number={1}, pages={67-71}, year={2008}, abstract={Aims: To compare the image quality of panoramic radiographs obtained with charge–coupled device
(CCD) and screen–film systems. Materials and methods: True Panoramic radiographs were taken in
26 patients each with both screen–film and CCD systems. The images were obtained with TRATO
2000, CE by VILLA SISTEMI MEDICALIS–ITALY with regular intensifying screen type
Kodak Lanex and 6 x 12 inch screen type film used for film–based projection, while Dimax3
digital system pan/ceph, PLANMECA, Helsinki, Finland with CCD X–ray image sensor (the
size of the panoramic sensor was 15 x 30 cm and the resolution of the panoramic image was around
230 dpi, used for digital projection. Both X–ray machines were operated at range of 70–80
kV and 10–12 mA, according to the patient age. Altogether, the digital images files were
displayed on 17 inch monitor, brightness and contrast were fixed and no enhancement was
made before the digital images files were saved. While the film–based images after processing
were viewed on the viewer box. Image quality was assessed by rating the visibility
of five anatomical landmarks commonly found on panoramic radiographs: The superior and
inferior cortex of the mandibular canal, the superior and inferior margin of the mental
foramen, the lower and anterior border of the maxillary sinus, the lower border of the
mandible, and the articular eminence. For each image, the given landmark was rated as good
(image of excellent diagnostic quality), acceptable (image of diagnostic quality but should
be improved), or unacceptable (image not of diagnostic quality). Each image was then given
an overall evaluation rating of good, acceptable, or unacceptable. Results: The data collected
from the evaluation of the digital and film–based images by the three examiners, were analyzed
by t–test. The image quality, as represented by each of the five anatomical landmarks,
and the overall rating for each system were expressed as the mean scores of the three
examiners. The difference between the film–based and the digital images systems was not statistically
significant (P>0.05). Conclusions: It was concluded that digital panoramic radiographs are equivalent
to film–based images for the five anatomical landmarks.

} }