ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2023
Revisiting dynamic range and image enhancement ability of contemporary digital radiographic systems-part 2: a subjective assessment.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Dental Radiology and Diagnostics-From 2D to 3D.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Can Digital Enhancement Restore the Image Quality of Phosphor Plate-Based Radiographs Partially Damaged by Ambient Light?Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Ambient light exposure of photostimulable phosphor plates: is there a safe limit for acceptable image quality?Dento maxillo facial radiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the subjective image quality of original and manually enhanced radiographs acquired at different X-ray exposure times and using different digital systems.
methodsA total of 500 radiographs obtained under 10 exposure times, 5 digital systems, and 2 enhancement conditions were assessed by 5 observers, who were asked to categorize each radiograph into acceptable or unacceptable. A radiograph was considered to be acceptable when at least four out of five observers found it acceptable. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the outcomes and compare the subjective image quality of original and manually enhanced digital radiographs among different X-ray exposure times and digital systems.
resultsExpress had six exposure times producing acceptable original images within a range from 0.063 to 0.4 s, followed by Digora Toto, which had five within a range from 0.063 to 0.32 s, Digora Optime, which had four within a range from 0.063 to 0.2 s,and SnapShot and VistaScan, which had 2 (0.2 and 0.32 s) and 1 (0.63 s), respectively. Image enhancement turned unacceptable images into acceptable ones in four digital systems: SnapShot at three exposure times, Digora Toto at two exposure times, Express at one exposure time, and VistaScan at four exposure times.
conclusionImage enhancement based on brightness and/or contrast adjustments may be necessary to reveal the useful dynamic range of some digital radiographic systems and PSP-based systems may not necessarily have a wider range than sensor-based systems.
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.