ArticleImaging science in dentistry2026
Retrospective evaluation of mandibular third molars using simulated low-dose cone-beam computed tomography: A comparative image quality study.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study was performed to establish a procedure for simulated low-dose cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and to investigate whether the resulting images are comparable in diagnostic accuracy to those obtained using a clinical low-dose protocol. Materials and Methods: ImageJ was used to manipulate the sinogram data from CBCT scans acquired at 5 mA to mimic a technical setting of 2 mA by adding noise to the Radon-transformed projection data before image reconstruction. Four observers compared the simulated 2 mA CBCT scans with original clinical 2 mA CBCT scans acquired previously. The CBCT images were analysed using a protocol with a ranking scale, and the observers were required to select only 1 category for each variable. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess differences between the 2 CBCT scan types, with a significance level of Results: Pairwise observer comparisons of the simulated and clinical low-dose CBCT scans showed no significant differences in image quality. Intra-observer agreement was acceptable, and in 5 comparisons, the results indicated a high degree of agreement. Conclusion: Simulated low-dose CBCT scans can be generated using ImageJ. No significant differences in image quality were observed between simulated and clinical low-dose CBCT scans when evaluating mandibular third molars. These findings suggest that manipulation of sinogram data is a promising radiation-free approach for simulating low-dose images in optimisation efforts.
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.