ArticleImaging science in dentistry2026
Evaluation of image quality in conventional intraoral radiographs acquired with a stationary intraoral tomosynthesis system.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To objectively evaluate the image quality of conventional two-dimensional intraoral radiographs acquired with a stationary intraoral tomosynthesis (s-IOT) system under different tube voltage settings and post-processing adjustments. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four radiographs of an acrylic-block phantom were obtained using a s-IOT system coupled to a size-2 CMOS sensor, with standardized exposure parameters (7 mA and 0.16 seconds of exposure) under two conditions: two tube voltages (60 and 70 kVp) and, with ("current image") and without ("current frame") post-processing image export modes. Brightness, noise, and uniformity were quantitatively assessed using ImageJ (U.S National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) software. Twenty-four radiographs of a dental digital quality assurance phantom were obtained under the same conditions to evaluate spatial and contrast resolution, and percentage of radiographic contrast. All image quality parameters were compared between export modes and tube voltages using two-way repeated-measures Analysis of Variance followed by Sidak post-hoc tests ( Results: Current image radiographs had higher brightness and uniformity, lower percentage of radiographic contrast and noise compared with current frame radiographs. Spatial resolution ranged from 9 lp/mm at 60 kVp to 10 lp/mm at 70 kVp, irrespective of post-processing adjustments. Contrast resolution was superior in radiographs without post-processing adjustments, regardless of the kVp. Conclusion: Radiographs acquired with the s-IOT system without post-processing adjustments show lower brightness and higher contrast, but increased noise and reduced uniformity compared with post processed images. Spatial resolution was unaffected by post-processing adjustments but was improved by increasing exposure to 70 kVp.
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.