Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40553244›Full record

ArticleOral radiology2026

Comparison of image quality between intraoral radiographic images using wall-mounted and handheld dental X-ray units.

Débora Costa Ruiz, Christiano de Oliveira-Santos, Marcela Tarosso Réa, Thaisa Pinheiro Silva, Gustavo Machado Santaella, William C Scarfe, Deborah Queiroz Freitas

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Débora Costa RuizDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901, Areião, Piracicaba, SP, 13414-903, Brazil. ruiz03338@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2223-1286
Christiano de Oliveira-SantosDepartment of Diagnosis & Oral Health, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, 501 South Preston Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9936-7547
Marcela Tarosso RéaDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901, Areião, Piracicaba, SP, 13414-903, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5230-6488
Thaisa Pinheiro SilvaDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901, Areião, Piracicaba, SP, 13414-903, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7485-0206
Gustavo Machado SantaellaDepartment of Diagnosis & Oral Health, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, 501 South Preston Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0884-2443
William C ScarfeDepartment of Diagnosis & Oral Health, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, 501 South Preston Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Deborah Queiroz FreitasDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901, Areião, Piracicaba, SP, 13414-903, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1425-5966

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the quality of intraoral radiographic images of two types of dental detectors using wall-mounted and handheld dental X-ray units.

methodsSix intraoral dental radiographic images of a Dental Digital Quality Assurance radiographic phantom (Dental Imaging Consultants LLC, San Antonio, TX) were acquired with two types of dental receptors: photostimulable phosphor (PSP) receptor (CS 7600 digital system, Carestream Dental, Rochester, New York, United States) under two conditions, filtered and unfiltered; and a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor (RGV 6200, Carestream Dental, Rochester, New York, United States) using handheld (Nomad Pro 2; Kavo Kerr, Biberach, Germany) and wall-mounted (Midmark Preva DC Intraoral X-ray, Midmark Corporation, Illinois, United States) dental X-ray units. Spatial and contrast resolutions and percentage of radiographic contrast were evaluated. Then, radiographic images of an acrylic block were obtained under the same conditions and brightness, noise, and uniformity were assessed. Values were compared between the devices and the digital systems with Analysis of Variance (P < 0.05).

resultsThere were no differences in spatial and contrast resolutions between dental X-ray units and detectors. Handheld dental X-ray units provide significantly higher radiographic contrast (P < 0.001) and lower brightness, noise, and uniformity (P < 0.001) regardless of the digital system used.

conclusionsCompared to a wall-mounted dental X-ray unit, the handheld device provides higher radiographic contrast and lower brightness, noise, and uniformity regardless of the digital system used.

Indexed as

Radiography, DentalRadiography, Dental, DigitalEquipment DesignHumansPhantoms, ImagingDental digital radiographyDental equipmentPortableQuality controlX-Rays

Identifiers

PMID40553244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.