009). But there was not significant (P=0.761) difference between the quality of images from neck and lower extremities.

Discussion The present study revealed that images taken by MFS system had an overall superior quality than those taken by SFS system. Such a finding is in ood agreement with those of Faridah et al.1 Soler et al.2 Abdollah et al.6 and Hubbard et al. 7Such a finding is predictable, since the modulation transfer function and the cross over effect is lower in MFS than in SFS.5,7 The evaluation of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical image quality is subjective and associated with uncertainties. According to Ciraj-Bjelac et al.8 and Oliviera et al.9 the quality of radiograph images should be assessed using standardized test objects. Therefore, more supplementary studies using unique test objects are needed for exact decision.

The study also showed that there was no difference between the quality of images taken by MFS and SFS from thick body parts including neck, knee and leg. This finding is similar to that of Soler et al.2 but different from those of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Faridah et al.1 and Abdollah et al.6 Such a finding might be related to the use Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of high voltages (usually 50-60 Kvp) for radiography of thick parts of the body. Mammography uses much lower voltages (22-35 Kvp). As the sensitivity and energy absorption of mammography film-screen combination decreases by increasing of tube voltage, the image quality of MFS reduces at high voltage imaging techniques.1,5 Nowadays, the analogue systems are being replaced by digital ones. In this study only the analogue film-screen systems were compared. There Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical are many studies on the comparison of digital mammography and radiography systems to examine their abilities to detection small bone lesions and fractures.9 Van-ongeval et al.10 compared Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the computed radiography and screen-film mammography to detect osseous lesion. They showed that even though images taken by mammography were of higher quality, there was no difference between the two methods for selleck chemicals lesion detection. Also, studies by Fischmann et al.11 Yanpeng et al.12 and others,10-12 indicate that even though the quality

of images were rated higher in one system, the ability to detect lesion did not differ between the two systems. The results of dosimetry showed Mannose-binding protein-associated serine protease that patients utilizing MFS system received a higher dose of radiation. However, such a finding is not in agreement with those of Abdollah et al. 6 and Soler et al.2 who found no significant difference between the radiations received in MFS and SFS, or that of Faridah et al.1 who overestimated the difference. Conclusion The findings of the present study suggest that MFS system may be recommended as a diagnostic tool for the detection of small fractures of tinny parts of the body such as fingers, hand or foot. They also suggest that MFS system has no advantage over SFS system for radiography of thick parts of the body such as neck and knee.