ArticleBrazilian dental journal
DICOM file format has better radiographic image quality than other file formats: an objective study.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Survival Prediction in Glioblastoma Patients using Advanced MRI Techniques.Current medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- CBCT in Dental Research: Is Complexity Necessary? An Exploratory Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Multimodal Vision Frontier Models With Lumbar Spine MRIs for Grading Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Does facial sunscreen usage impact radiographic image quality and radiation dose? An in vitro study.Oral radiology · 2025Article
- Post-Extraction Bone Changes in Molars Within Personalized Implant-Prosthetic Therapy as Evaluated with Fractal Analysis of CBCT.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the influence of the file format on the image quality parameters (image noise, brightness, and uniformity) of periapical radiographs acquired with different digital systems. Radiographic images of an acrylic phantom were acquired with two digital systems - Digora Toto and Express, and exported into five different file formats - TIFF, BMP, DICOM, PNG, and JPEG. Image noise, image brightness (mean of gray values), and image uniformity (standard deviation of gray values) were evaluated in all images. A two-way analysis of variance with Tukey's test as a post-hoc test was used to compare the results, considering the file formats and radiographic systems as the studied factors. A significance level of 5% was adopted for all analyses. The DICOM image file format presented lower image noise, higher brightness (higher mean gray values), and greater image uniformity (p<0.001) than the other file formats, which did not differ from each other for both digital radiography systems (p>0.05). The Express system revealed lower image noise and greater image uniformity than the Digora Toto system regardless of the image file format (p<0.001). Moreover, the Express showed higher brightness than the Digora Toto for all image file formats (p<0.001), except for the DICOM image file format, which did not significantly differ between the digital radiography systems tested (p>0.05). The DICOM image file format showed lower image noise, higher brightness, and greater image uniformity than the other file formats (TIFF, BMP, PNG, and JPEG) in both digital radiography systems tested.
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.