ArticleScientific reports2026
Image quality and radiation dose of cone-beam CT versus multidetector CT for upper extremity osteosynthesis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared image quality and radiation dose between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) under equivalent scanning settings, focusing on postoperative imaging after upper extremity osteosynthesis. A distal radius plate was implanted in a cadaveric forearm to simulate postoperative conditions. A total of twenty-four scans were performed using both modalities. Radiation dose was quantified with seven dosimeters placed at various anatomical locations and scan parameters were adjusted to ensure comparability. Subjective image quality was evaluated by five independent radiologists, while objective image quality was assessed using signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio. Significant differences were found in radiation exposure and image quality. CBCT showed a slightly higher radiation dose (dose-length product: CBCT, 56.97 mGy*cm; MDCT, 46.19 mGy*cm; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in cortical bone assessment (p = 0.28), but CBCT was rated higher for cancellous bone visualization (p = 0.005), artifact reduction (p = 0.003), and overall image quality (p = 0.009). Objectively, CBCT demonstrated lower image noise with superior signal-to-noise ratio (p = 0.0004) and contrast-to-noise ratio (p < 0.0001). This research offers a direct comparison of CBCT and MDCT using matched scan parameters on the same anatomical specimen, providing practical insights into image quality and radiation dose for optimizing postoperative orthopedic imaging protocols. CBCT demonstrates advantages in bone imaging and artifact management, while MDCT has superior potential for radiation dose reduction without compromising image quality.
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.