Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.00425
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Influence of different ambient luminances on the perception of gray values

Influência de diferentes luminâncias na percepção de valores de cinza

Camila Silvério Carvalho VIEIRA; Lorena Mendes ALMEIDA; Francielle Silvestre VERNER; Gabriella Lopes de REZENDE BARBOSA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.00425 Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.54, e20250004, 2025
PDF
Downloads: 0
Views: 24

Abstract

Introduction: In clinical practice, dental offices present varying ambient light conditions that may influence the assessment of radiographic exams.

Objective: Evaluate the influence of ambient light conditions on the contrast sensitivity function in the perception of different densities on dental radiographs.

Material and method: 55 conventional radiographs of aluminum step-wedges were evaluated by four previously trained and calibrated observers (two undergraduate students and two graduate students) in two environments with different luminance: 50 lux and 500 lux. The radiographs were obtained by positioning two aluminum step-wedges (one fragmented and one intact) with 11 different thicknesses in a periapical film. The fragmented steps were randomly arranged on the upper side of a periapical film while the intact step-wedge was positioned on the bottom part. Over the radiographic series, this arrangement was set respecting a previously standardized organization in five combinations, always maintaining a constant central step. During image analysis, the observers indicated the correspondence of the central fragmented step on the intact step-wedge that served as a reference. After 30 days, 25% of the sample was reevaluated. The statistical analysis was performed using weighted Kappa and Wilcoxon tests.

Result: The results did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between the data obtained in the same environment with the two different light conditions (p=0.174). However, in both conditions, most evaluations indicated a perception of higher radiopacity in the central step.

Conclusion: Different ambient light conditions do not interfere with the contrast sensitivity function in the perception of gray values in conventional radiographs.

Keywords

X-ray film; visual perception; radiography, dental; contrast sensitivity

Resumo

Introdução: Na prática clínica, os consultórios odontológicos apresentam diferentes condições de iluminação que podem influenciar na avaliação de exames radiográficos.

Objetivo: Avaliar a influência da luminância do ambiente na função de sensibilidade ao contraste na percepção de diferentes densidades em radiografias convencionais.

Material e método: Essa pesquisa in vitro contou com 55 radiografias de duas escalas de alumínio. As imagens foram avaliadas por 4 observadores previamente instruídos e calibrados, dois alunos de graduação e dois alunos de pós-graduação, em dois ambientes com diferentes luminâncias: 50 lux e 500 lux. Para a obtenção das radiografias, os degraus da escala fragmentada foram posicionados na parte superior de um filme radiográfico orientado na horizontal, enquanto a escala íntegra foi posicionada na parte inferior. Nas séries radiográficas, os fragmentos foram dispostos aleatoriamente, respeitando-se uma organização previamente padronizada em cinco combinações, e de forma que sempre se mantivesse um degrau central constante. Tendo como referência os níveis de radiopacidade da escala íntegra, os avaliadores indicaram qual era o degrau central disposto na escala fragmentada. Após 30 dias, 25% da amostra foi reavaliada. A análise estatística contou os testes Kappa ponderado e Wilcoxon.

Resultado: Os resultados não demonstraram diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os dados obtidos em ambientes com diferentes luminâncias (p=0.174). Entretanto, em ambas as condições, a maioria das avaliações indicou degraus mais radiopacos que o padrão de referência.

Conclusão: Dessa forma, pode-se concluir que a luminância do ambiente não interfere na função de sensibilidade ao contraste na percepção de tons de cinza de radiografias convencionais.

Palavras-chave

Filme para raios X; percepção visual; radiografia dentária; sensibilidades de contraste

Referências

1 Borchers C, Eder TF, Richter J, Keutel C, Huettig F, Scheiter K. A time slice analysis of dentistry students’ visual search strategies and pupil dilation during diagnosing radiographs. PLoS One. 2023 Jun;18(6):e0283376. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283376. PMid:37289785.

2 Castner N, Appel T, Eder T, Richter J, Scheiter K, Keutel C, et al. Pupil diameter differentiates expertise in dental radiography visual search. PLoS One. 2020 May;15(5):e0223941. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223941. PMid:32469952.

3 Jacquet W, Cleymaet RG, Bottenberg P. Grey value contrast sensitivity of dental practitioners in function of luminance and age. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019 Sep;48(6):20180398. http://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180398. PMid:30807210.

4 Pollard BJ, Chawla AS, Delong DM, Hashimoto N, Samei E. Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions. Med Phys. 2008 Jun;35(6):2204-13. http://doi.org/10.1118/1.2907566. PMid:18649449.

5 Ohla H, Dagassan-Berndt D, Payer M, Filippi A, Schulze RKW, Kühl S. Role of ambient light in the detection of contrast elements in digital dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018 Nov;126(5):439-43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.08.003. PMid:30228056.

6 Lima CAS, Nascimento EHL, Gaêta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos C, Freitas DQ, Haiter-Neto F, et al. Is the digital radiographic detection of approximal caries lesions influenced by viewing conditions? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020 Feb;129(2):165-70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.08.007. PMid:31474575.

7 Hellén-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(8):20130071. http://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130071. PMid:23775926.

8 Freire RT, Prata-Júnior AR, Pinho JNA, Takeshita WM. Diagnostic accuracy of caries and periapical lesions on a monitor with and without DICOM-GSDF calibration under different ambient light conditions. J Digit Imaging. 2022 Jun;35(3):654-59. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00596-w. PMid:35166971.

9 Lima CAS, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GMB, Haiter-Neto F, Oliveira ML. Influence of interpretation conditions on the subjective differentiation of radiographic contrast of images obtained with a digital intraoral system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019 May;127(5):444-50. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2019.01.003. PMid:30738753.

10 Ochoa-Rodríguez VM, Wilches-Visbal JH, Roma B, Coaguila-Llerena H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Gonçalves A, et al. Radiopacity of endodontic materials using two models for conversion to millimeters of aluminum. Braz Oral Res. 2020;34:e080. http://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0080. PMid:32696910.

11 Danz JC, Flück HP, Campus G, Wolf TG. Computed vs. film-based radiographs’ contour artifacts influence diagnosis of secondary caries. Eur J Radiol. 2023 Sep;166:111004. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111004. PMid:37556885.

12 Watts DC, McCabe JF. Aluminium radiopacity standards for dentistry: an international survey. J Dent. 1999 Jan;27(1):73-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00025-6. PMid:9922615.

13 Kutcher MJ, Kalathingal S, Ludlow JB, Abreu M Jr, Platin E. 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. 2006 Oct;102(4):537-43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.11.004. PMid:16997122.

14 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74. http://doi.org/10.2307/2529310. PMid:843571.

15 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(5):20140360. http://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140360. PMid:25629721.

16 Abdinian M, Keshani F, Sadeghi F, Soltani P, Spagnuolo G, Rengo C. Evaluation of the effects of postprocessing settings in digital bitewing radiographs on proximal caries detection. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024 Jun;10(3):e889. http://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.889. PMid:38712390.

17 Fontenele RC, Nejaim Y, Farias Gomes A, Gaêta-Araujo H, Haiter-Neto F, Freitas DQ. Does the addition of a lead foil to digital radiographic receptors influence image contrast and approximal caries lesions diagnosis? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020 May;49(4):20190384. http://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190384. PMid:32027521.

18 Moshfeghi M, Shahbazian M, Sajadi SS, Sajadi S, Ansari H. Effects of different viewing conditions on radiographic interpretation. J Dent. 2015 Nov;12(11):853-58. PMid:27507997.
 

Submetido em:
17/02/2025

Aceito em:
07/04/2025

682358faa9539519b41fde73 rou Articles
Links & Downloads
1807-2577 (Eletrônico)
Rev. odontol. UNESP ©2025 Todos os direitos reservados.

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections