ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2020
Does the addition of a lead foil to digital radiographic receptors influence image contrast and approximal caries lesions diagnosis?
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of a handheld X-ray unit in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions using different digital systems.Oral radiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of objective radiograph quality between radiographs obtained with wall-mounted and handheld X-ray devices.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Influence of a portable X-ray device in the diagnosis of proximal caries lesions.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
- A comparative investigation of the quality of radiographs produced by portable handheld and fixed x-ray units.Brazilian dental journal · 2025Article
- Could the radiographic image quality be affected by the excessive use of the photostimulable phosphor plate?Brazilian dental journalArticle
- DICOM file format has better radiographic image quality than other file formats: an objective study.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo access the influence of the addition of a lead foil to intraoral digital radiographic receptors on image contrast and approximal caries lesions diagnosis.
methods40 posterior teeth were distributed in silicone phantoms composed of two premolars, two molars and a non-test canine. Radiographic images of the phantoms were obtained with and without the incorporation of a lead foil, using the Digora Optime and Digora Toto systems. Four observers scored the images for the presence of caries lesions, using a 5-point scale. Images of an aluminum step wedge were acquired with and without the incorporation of a lead foil. Gray values and standard deviation of gray values were calculated in different thickness of the step wedge and, then, contrast variation was calculated.
resultsPresence of a lead foil did not influence caries lesions diagnostic values, regardless of the type of digital system (
conclusionsThe addition of a lead foil to intraoral digital receptors did not influence image contrast nor caries lesions diagnosis.
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.