ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2016
The effect of anatomical noise on perception of low contrast in intra-oral radiographs: an in vitro study.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021Article
- Application of portable digital radiography for dental investigations of ancient Egyptian mummies during archaeological excavations: Evaluation and discussion of the advantages and limitations of different approaches and projections.Imaging science in dentistry · 2018Article
- Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth.Imaging science in dentistry · 2018Article
- Numerical Evaluation of Image Contrast for Thicker and Thinner Objects among Current Intraoral Digital Imaging Systems.BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRadiographic images suffer from varying amounts of noise. The most studied and discussed of these is random noise. However, recent research has shown that the projected anatomy contributes substantially to noise, especially when detecting low-contrast objects in the images. Our aim, therefore, was to evaluate the extent to which overprojected anatomical noise affects the detection of low-contrast objects in intra-oral images.
methodsOur study used four common sensor models. With each sensor, we took four series of images, three series with and one series without an anatomical phantom present. In each series, we exposed a low-contrast phantom at 18 different exposure times using a standardized method. 4 observers evaluated all 288 images.
resultsThe low-contrast characteristics differed substantially when imaging low contrast on a homogeneous background compared with imaging low contrast when an anatomical phantom was present. For three of the sensors, optimal exposure times for low-contrast imaging were found, while the fourth sensor displayed a completely different behaviour.
conclusionsCalibrating the low-contrast properties of an imaging system using low-contrast objects on a homogeneous background is not recommended. On an anatomical background, low-contrast properties are completely different, and these will mimic the clinical situation much more closely, directing the operator how to best use the system. There is a clear demand for further research on this subject.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.