Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify, compile, and report the technical specifications of current and historical intraoral digital radiographic systems and recommend standardised reporting practices for production companies. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive report was prepared on 150 intraoral digital radiographic systems, comprising 105 sensor-based (70%) and 45 phosphor storage plate (PSP)-based systems (30%). Technical specifi cations were obtained from official company sources and scientific articles to ensure a complete collection of available data. Results: These systems were produced by 55 companies across 11 countries, with the United States leading (35.3%), followed by France (12%). Among the sensor systems, 76.2% used complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) technology, with notable variations in sizes and resolutions. PSP systems were available in 7 plate sizes and displayed diverse resolutions and scanning times. Twenty-one companies produced both sensor- and PSP-based systems, 33 produced only sensor-based systems, and 1 produced exclusively PSP-based systems. Conclusion This report identified 150 digital radiographic systems, revealing wide variability in technicalspecifications and a lack of standardised reporting protocols. The comprehensive summary and recommendations forconsistent documentation provided here can help clinicians make informed decisions and encourage manufacturers and production companies to adopt uniform reporting standards aligned with local regulatory frameworks.

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the objective image quality of radiographs acquired with a handheld X-ray device to those obtained with a wall-mounted X-ray device. Materials and Methods: Brightness, noise, uniformity, and contrast were evaluated. To assess the first 3 parameters,radiographs of an acrylic block were acquired with an unused photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate from the VistaScan system (Mini Easy, Dürr Dental, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). Initially, 6 radiographs were taken with a Focus X-ray wall-mounted device (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) operating at 60 kVp, 7 mA, and 0.125 s.Another 6 radiographs were captured using an Eagle handheld X-ray device (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) at 60 kVp, 2.5 mA, and 0.35 s. The means and standard deviations of the gray values for all radiographs were calculated using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). For contrast assessment, radiographs of an aluminum step wedge were obtained using the same PSP plate, X-ray devices, and acquisition parameters. The percentage of contrast variation was determined. The impacts of the devices on image quality were compared using the Student t-test, with a significance level of 5% (P<0.05). Results: Compared with the wall-mounted device, the handheld device produced radiographs with higher brightness and noise, as indicated by mean values of 6.57 (0.49) and 3.49 (0.02), respectively. Furthermore, it demonstrated lower uniformity and contrast, with respective means of 3.75 (0.02) and 35.48 (0.09) (P<0.05). Conclusion Radiographs obtained using a handheld X-ray device exhibit lower theoretical image quality than those acquired with a wall-mounted device.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify, compile, and report the technical specifications of current and historical intraoral digital radiographic systems and recommend standardised reporting practices for production companies. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive report was prepared on 150 intraoral digital radiographic systems, comprising 105 sensor-based (70%) and 45 phosphor storage plate (PSP)-based systems (30%). Technical specifi cations were obtained from official company sources and scientific articles to ensure a complete collection of available data. Results: These systems were produced by 55 companies across 11 countries, with the United States leading (35.3%), followed by France (12%). Among the sensor systems, 76.2% used complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) technology, with notable variations in sizes and resolutions. PSP systems were available in 7 plate sizes and displayed diverse resolutions and scanning times. Twenty-one companies produced both sensor- and PSP-based systems, 33 produced only sensor-based systems, and 1 produced exclusively PSP-based systems. Conclusion This report identified 150 digital radiographic systems, revealing wide variability in technicalspecifications and a lack of standardised reporting protocols. The comprehensive summary and recommendations forconsistent documentation provided here can help clinicians make informed decisions and encourage manufacturers and production companies to adopt uniform reporting standards aligned with local regulatory frameworks.

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the objective image quality of radiographs acquired with a handheld X-ray device to those obtained with a wall-mounted X-ray device. Materials and Methods: Brightness, noise, uniformity, and contrast were evaluated. To assess the first 3 parameters,radiographs of an acrylic block were acquired with an unused photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate from the VistaScan system (Mini Easy, Dürr Dental, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). Initially, 6 radiographs were taken with a Focus X-ray wall-mounted device (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) operating at 60 kVp, 7 mA, and 0.125 s.Another 6 radiographs were captured using an Eagle handheld X-ray device (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) at 60 kVp, 2.5 mA, and 0.35 s. The means and standard deviations of the gray values for all radiographs were calculated using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). For contrast assessment, radiographs of an aluminum step wedge were obtained using the same PSP plate, X-ray devices, and acquisition parameters. The percentage of contrast variation was determined. The impacts of the devices on image quality were compared using the Student t-test, with a significance level of 5% (P<0.05). Results: Compared with the wall-mounted device, the handheld device produced radiographs with higher brightness and noise, as indicated by mean values of 6.57 (0.49) and 3.49 (0.02), respectively. Furthermore, it demonstrated lower uniformity and contrast, with respective means of 3.75 (0.02) and 35.48 (0.09) (P<0.05). Conclusion Radiographs obtained using a handheld X-ray device exhibit lower theoretical image quality than those acquired with a wall-mounted device.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify, compile, and report the technical specifications of current and historical intraoral digital radiographic systems and recommend standardised reporting practices for production companies. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive report was prepared on 150 intraoral digital radiographic systems, comprising 105 sensor-based (70%) and 45 phosphor storage plate (PSP)-based systems (30%). Technical specifi cations were obtained from official company sources and scientific articles to ensure a complete collection of available data. Results: These systems were produced by 55 companies across 11 countries, with the United States leading (35.3%), followed by France (12%). Among the sensor systems, 76.2% used complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) technology, with notable variations in sizes and resolutions. PSP systems were available in 7 plate sizes and displayed diverse resolutions and scanning times. Twenty-one companies produced both sensor- and PSP-based systems, 33 produced only sensor-based systems, and 1 produced exclusively PSP-based systems. Conclusion This report identified 150 digital radiographic systems, revealing wide variability in technicalspecifications and a lack of standardised reporting protocols. The comprehensive summary and recommendations forconsistent documentation provided here can help clinicians make informed decisions and encourage manufacturers and production companies to adopt uniform reporting standards aligned with local regulatory frameworks.

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the objective image quality of radiographs acquired with a handheld X-ray device to those obtained with a wall-mounted X-ray device. Materials and Methods: Brightness, noise, uniformity, and contrast were evaluated. To assess the first 3 parameters,radiographs of an acrylic block were acquired with an unused photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate from the VistaScan system (Mini Easy, Dürr Dental, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). Initially, 6 radiographs were taken with a Focus X-ray wall-mounted device (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) operating at 60 kVp, 7 mA, and 0.125 s.Another 6 radiographs were captured using an Eagle handheld X-ray device (Alliage, São Paulo, Brazil) at 60 kVp, 2.5 mA, and 0.35 s. The means and standard deviations of the gray values for all radiographs were calculated using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). For contrast assessment, radiographs of an aluminum step wedge were obtained using the same PSP plate, X-ray devices, and acquisition parameters. The percentage of contrast variation was determined. The impacts of the devices on image quality were compared using the Student t-test, with a significance level of 5% (P<0.05). Results: Compared with the wall-mounted device, the handheld device produced radiographs with higher brightness and noise, as indicated by mean values of 6.57 (0.49) and 3.49 (0.02), respectively. Furthermore, it demonstrated lower uniformity and contrast, with respective means of 3.75 (0.02) and 35.48 (0.09) (P<0.05). Conclusion Radiographs obtained using a handheld X-ray device exhibit lower theoretical image quality than those acquired with a wall-mounted device.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the image quality, diagnostic efficacy, and radiation dose associated with the use of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) detector, compared to charge-coupled device (CCD) and complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) detectors. Materials and Methods: Lateral cephalographs of a phantom (type 1) composed of synthetic polymer filled with water and another phantom (type 2) composed of human skull macerated with polymer coating were obtained with CdTe, CCD, and CMOS detectors. Dosimeters placed on the type 2 phantom were used to measure radiation. Noise levels from each image were also measured. McNamara cephalometric analysis was conducted, the dentoskeletal configurations were assessed, and a subjective evaluation of image quality was conducted. Parametric data were compared via 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post-hoc test, with a significance level of 5%. Subjective image quality and dentoskeletal configuration were described qualitatively. Results: A statistically significant difference was found among the images obtained with the 3 detectors (P<0.05), with the lowest noise level observed among the images obtained with the CdTe detector and a higher subjective preference demonstrated for those images. For the cephalometric analyses, no significant difference (P>0.05) was observed, and perfect agreement was seen with regard to the classifications obtained from the images acquired using the 3 detectors. The radiation dose associated with the CMOS detector was higher than the doses associated with the CCD (P<0.05) and CdTe detectors (P<0.05). Conclusion Considering the evaluated parameters, the CdTe detector is recommended for use in clinical practice.

Purpose: This study was conducted evaluate the influence of reconstruction parameters of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) images on bone mineral density (BMD) analyses. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of micro-CT images of the maxillae of 5 Wistar rats, acquired using a SkyScan 1174 unit (Bruker, Kontich, Belgium). Each acquisition was reconstructed following the manufacturer's recommendations (standard protocol; SP) for the application of artifact correction tools (beam hardening correction [BHC], 45%; smoothing filter, degree 2; and ring artifact correction [RAC], level 5). Additionally, images were reconstructed with 36 protocols combining different settings of artifact correction tools (P0 to P35). BMD analysis was performed for each reconstructed image. The BMD values obtained for each protocol were compared to those obtained using the SP through repeated-measures analysis of variance with the Dunnett post hoc test (α=0.05). Results: The BMD values obtained from all protocols that used a BHC of 45% did not significantly differ from those obtained using the SP (p>0.05). The other protocols all yielded significantly different BMD values from the SP (p<0.05). The smoothing and RAC tools did not affect BMD values. Conclusion BMD values measured on micro-CT images were influenced by the BHC level. Higher levels of BHC induced higher values of BMD.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of different spatial resolutions of a photostimulable phosphor plate (PSP) radiography system on the detection of proximal caries lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five extracted human permanent teeth were radiographed using a PSP system (VistaScan Perio Plus) and scanned at the 4 resolutions (10 lp/mm, 20 lp/mm, 25 lp/mm, and 40 lp/mm) available in the system. Three independent examiners scored the images for the presence and absence of proximal caries lesions using a 5-point scale. The presence or absence of caries was confirmed by histological sections of the examined teeth (defined as the gold standard). Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was calculated by the weighted kappa test. One-way analysis of variance with the post hoc Tukey test was used to compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the classifications made with each resolution. RESULTS: For the detection of enamel lesions, the spatial resolution of 10 lp/mm was significantly superior to the other resolutions. However, the spatial resolution did not affect the detection of caries lesions in dentin (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Spatial resolution may influence the accuracy of the detection of incipient caries lesions in radiographs with PSP plates. Images with low spatial resolution seem to be more appropriate for this purpose.
Classification ; Dental Caries ; Dental Enamel ; Dentin ; Diagnostic Imaging ; Humans ; Radiography ; ROC Curve ; Tooth