ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2023
As low as diagnostically acceptable dose imaging in maxillofacial trauma: a reference quality approach.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of MRI-based bone-targeted sequences and computed tomography for preoperative assessment of midfacial trauma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of CT and MRI in mandibular trauma assessment - a prospective comparative study.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of patients' knowledge and awareness of the harmful effects of radiation at two dental faculties: a questionnaire-based study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Black bone and CT-like MRI-based delineation of fracture-prone regions in oral and maxillofacial trauma.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on imaging diagnosis and analysis of early correction of childhood malocclusion.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs-low-as-diagnostically-acceptable (ALADA) doses are substantially lower than current diagnostic reference levels. To improve dose management, a reference quality approach was tested in which phantom quality metrics of a clinical ALADA dose reference protocol were used to benchmark potential ALADA dose protocols for various scanner models.
methodsSpatial resolution, contrast resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and subjective noise and sharpness were evaluated for a clinical ALADA dose reference protocol at 80 kV and 40 mA (CTDIvol 2.66 mGy) and compared with test protocols of two CT scanners at 100 kV and 35 mA (3.08-3.44 mGy), 80 kV and 54-61 mA (2.65 mGy), 80 kV and 40 mA (1.73-1.92 mGy), and 80 kV and 21-23 mA (1.00-1.03 mGy) using different kernels, filtered backprojection and iterative reconstructions. The test protocols with the lowest dose showing quality metrics non-inferior to the reference protocol were verified in a cadaver study by determining the diagnostic accuracy of detection of maxillofacial fractures and CNR of the optical nerve and rectus inferior muscle.
results36 different image series were analysed in the phantom study. Based on the phantom quality metrics, potential ALADA dose protocols at 1.73-1.92 mGy were selected. Compared with the reference images, the selected protocols showed non-inferiority in the detection and classification of maxillofacial fractures and non-inferior CNR of orbital soft tissues in the cadaver study.
conclusionsReference quality metrics from clinical ALADA dose protocols may be used to guide selection of potential ALADA dose protocols of different CT scanners.
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.