Evaluates image quality outcomes in intraoral radiographs, suggesting optimal settings for improved clarity.
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") postprocessing 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 (P<0.05).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 postprocessing 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.(Imaging Sci Dent 20260080)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruiz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: