Image registration and image interpolation in volume rendering of cross sections

We outline a method for registration of images of cross sections using the concepts of The Generalized Hough Transform (GHT). The approach may be useful in situations where automation should be a concern. To overcome known problems of noise of traditional GHT we have implemented a slight modified version of the basic algorithm. The modification consists of eliminating points of no interest in the process before the application of the accumulation step of the algorithm. This procedure minimizes the amount of accumulation points while reducing the probability of appearing of spurious peaks. Also, we apply image warping techniques to interpolate images among cross sections. This is needed where the distance of samples between sections is too large. Then it is suggested that the step of registration with GHT can help the interpolation automation by simplifying the correspondence between points of images. Some results are shown.

Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder

Objective: To compare a customized imaging guide and a standard film holder for obtaining optimally projected intraoral radiographs of dental implants.Material and methods: Intraoral radiographs of four screw-type implants with different inclination placed in an upper or lower dental phantom model were recorded by 32 groups of examiners after a short instruction in the use of the RB-RB/LB-LB mnemonic rule. Half of the examiners recorded the images using a standard film holder and the other half used a customized imaging guide. Each radiograph was assessed under blinded conditions with regard to rendering of the implant threads and was assigned to one of four quality categories: (1) perfect, (2) not perfect, but clinically acceptable, (3) not acceptable, and (4) hopeless.Results: For the upper jaw, the same number of exposures per implant were made to achieve an acceptable image (P = 0.86) by the standard film holder method (median = 2) and the imaging guide method (median = 2). For the lower jaw, medians for the imaging guide method and the film holder method were 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.004). For the imaging guide method, the first exposure was rated as perfect/acceptable in 62% of the cases and for the film holder method in 41% of the cases (P = 0.013). After <= 2 exposures, 78% (imaging guide method) and 69% (film holder method) of the implant images were perfect/acceptable (P=0.23). The implant inclination did not have a major influence on the outcomes.Conclusion: Perfect or acceptable images were achieved after two exposures with the same frequency either using a customized imaging guide method or a standard film holder method. However, the use of a customized imaging guide method was overall significantly superior to a standard film holder method in terms of obtaining perfect or acceptable images with only one exposure.

Development and applications of three-dimensional gamma ray tomography system using ray casting volume rendering techniques

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)