ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Preclinical and Preliminary Evaluation of Perceived Image Quality of AI-Processed Low-Dose CBCT Analysis of a Single Tooth.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Feasibility of Artificial Intelligence-Processed Low-Dose Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Dental Imaging.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Retrospective evaluation of mandibular third molars using simulated low-dose cone-beam computed tomography: A comparative image quality study.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Digital Dental Radiology and Diagnostics-From 2D to 3D.Australian dental journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed AI-processed low-dose cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images for single-tooth diagnosis. Human-equivalent phantoms were used to evaluate CBCT image quality with a focus on the right mandibular first molar. Two CBCT machines were used for evaluation. The first CBCT machine was used for the experimental group, in which images were acquired using four protocols and enhanced with AI processing to improve quality. The other machine was used for the control group, where images were taken in one protocol without AI processing. The dose-area product (DAP) was measured for each protocol. Subjective clinical image quality was assessed twice by five dentists, with a 2-month interval in between, using 11 parameters and a six-point rating scale. Agreement and statistical significance were assessed with Fleiss' kappa coefficient and intra-class correlation coefficient. The AI-processed protocols exhibited lower DAP/field of view values than non-processed protocols, while demonstrating subjective clinical evaluation results comparable to those of non-processed protocols. The Fleiss' kappa coefficient value revealed statistical significance and substantial agreement. The intra-class correlation coefficient showed statistical significance and almost perfect agreement. These findings highlight the importance of minimizing radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic quality as the usage of CBCT increases in single-tooth 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.