A Comparison of Radiographic Film Densitometry Using a New Computerized Tool with a Digital Densitometer.

Hoorieh Bashizadeh Fakhar, Elham Sadat Emadian Razavi, Sepideh Soheilifar, Mohammad Javad Kharazifard

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Role of Computed Tomography Scan in Dental Trauma: A Cross-Sectional Study.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hoorieh Bashizadeh FakharAssistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Elham Sadat Emadian RazaviAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Faculty, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran.

Sepideh SoheilifarAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Faculty, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran.

Mohammad Javad KharazifardStatistical Consultant, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to develop and test a new tool for radiographic densitometry by combining periapical films and aluminum step wedge. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe reviewed 50 Kodak E-speed intraoral films. An aluminum step wedge consisting of 16 steps was constructed. Each step was 1mm×3m×10mm. The step wedge was exposed to varying exposure times, ranging from 0.05 second to 0.5 second, increasing in 0.05 second increments. Films were digitalized after processing and the MATLAB software algorithm was ran subsequently. Density of the films was measured again using a digital densitometer. In order to compare the two imaging techniques, three steps were selected. Output data from the MATLAB algorithm were compared with data obtained from the digital densitometer.

resultsThe new method could detect significant differences between subsequent exposure times in step 7, while the densitometer did that in steps 7 and 12. The new method's sensitivity in determining density changes was 5.26%, 84.1% and 93.02% in steps 2, 7, and 12 respectively.

conclusionsOur new method has an acceptable sensitivity for determining density changes of at least 7 mmEq/Al.

Indexed as

AluminumDensitometryImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, Imaging

Identifiers

PMID28127317

PMCPMC5253218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.