ArticleImaging science in dentistry2024
The influence of the field of view and voxel size on the contrast-to-noise ratio in cone-beam computed tomography imaging.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing endodontic imaging: a high-resolution comparison between CBCT and micro-CT in the danger zone.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Accuracy of facial scan registration: A comparison between full-cranium and reduced field-of-view cone-beam computed tomography.Imaging science in dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the field of view (FOV), voxel size, and exposure parameters on the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: A SedentexCT phantom was scanned using 3D Accuitomo 170 across 3 FOVs (40×40 mm, 60×60 mm, 80×80 mm). Each FOV had 4 settings for kVp and 3 for mA. Volumes were reconstructed with voxel sizes from 80 to 250 µm. The CNR was calculated using ImageJ (ver. 1.41, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda). Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation coefficients and regression (R Results: Positive correlations were observed in the 40×40 FOV between voxel size, kVp, mA, rotation degree, and CNR. The 60×60 FOV showed positive correlations between mA, kVp, and CNR, while the 80×80 FOV exhibited correlations for voxel size, kVp, and mA. In the 40×40 (R Conclusion: CNR increased with higher mA, kVp, and larger voxel sizes for 40×40 and 80×80 FOVs. mA was the most influential factor across all FOVs. Regression models showed significant effects of mA and kVp on CNR with 80-µm voxels, while FOV had no effect.
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.