ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Does dose optimisation in digital panoramic radiography affect diagnostic performance?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of panoramic radiographic dose for third molar dental age assessment.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Birooted Mandibular Canine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Optimizing cone-beam computed tomography exposure for an effective radiation dose and image quality balance.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Super-Resolution of Dental Panoramic Radiographs Using Deep Learning: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the overall diagnostic performance of digital panoramic radiographs obtained with low-dose protocols and to estimate the absorbed dose in the head and neck. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-eight panoramic radiographs were obtained from eight imaging phantoms using six exposure protocols of progressively lower tube voltages (kVp) and currents (mA), as follows: (1) 70 kVp and 12.5 mA, (2) 66 kVp and 10 mA, (3) 66 kVp and 8 mA, (4) 66 kVp and 5 mA, (5) 66 kVp and 4 mA and (6) 66 kVp and 3.2 mA. Five oral radiologists independently evaluated the images and reported all detectable radiographic findings. Intra-examiner reproducibility was assessed by re-evaluation of 25% of the images. The data were analysed using the McNemar and weighted Kappa tests. Absorbed doses of the six protocols were obtained from thermoluminescent dosimeters placed inside a Rando phantom and compared using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey (α = 0.05).
resultsThe overall diagnostic performance of panoramic radiographs obtained with low-dose protocols did not differ from that of panoramic radiographs obtained with the highest dose (p > 0.05). Moreover, substantial agreement was observed between all protocols. Protocol 1 resulted in the highest absorbed dose and protocols 4, 5 and 6 in the lowest absorbed doses, with the difference being significant (p ≤ 0.05).
conclusionAlthough digital panoramic radiography is considered a relatively low-dose examination, the radiation dose can be further reduced without negatively affecting its overall diagnostic performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Considering the risks associated with X-rays, digital panoramic radiographs can be obtained at even lower exposure levels.
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.