ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Comparison of objective radiograph quality between radiographs obtained with wall-mounted and handheld X-ray devices.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation of image quality in conventional intraoral radiographs acquired with a stationary intraoral tomosynthesis system.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Brightness and contrast adjustments influence proximal caries detection on handheld X-ray radiographs.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- A comparative investigation of the quality of radiographs produced by portable handheld and fixed x-ray units.Brazilian dental journal · 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 was conducted to compare the objective image quality of radiographs acquired with a handheld X-ray device to those obtained with a wall-mounted X-ray device. Materials and Methods: Brightness, noise, uniformity, and contrast were evaluated. To assess the first 3 parameters, radiographs of an acrylic block were acquired with an unused photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate from the VistaScan system (Mini Easy, Dürr Dental, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). Initially, 6 radiographs were taken with a Focus X-ray wall-mounted device (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) operating at 60 kVp, 7 mA, and 0.125 s. Another 6 radiographs were captured using an Eagle handheld X-ray device (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) at 60 kVp, 2.5 mA, and 0.35 s. The means and standard deviations of the gray values for all radiographs were calculated using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). For contrast assessment, radiographs of an aluminum step wedge were obtained using the same PSP plate, X-ray devices, and acquisition parameters. The percentage of contrast variation was determined. The impacts of the devices on image quality were compared using the Student Results: Compared with the wall-mounted device, the handheld device produced radiographs with higher brightness and noise, as indicated by mean values of 6.57 (0.49) and 3.49 (0.02), respectively. Furthermore, it demonstrated lower uniformity and contrast, with respective means of 3.75 (0.02) and 35.48 (0.09) ( Conclusion: Radiographs obtained using a handheld X-ray device exhibit lower theoretical image quality than those acquired with a wall-mounted device.
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.