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 aim of this study was to evaluate image artifacts in the vicinity of dental implants in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans obtained with different spatial orientations, tube current levels, and metal artifact reduction algorithm (MAR) conditions. Materials and Methods: One dental implant and 2 tubes filled with a radiopaque solution were placed in the posterior region of a mandible using a surgical guide to ensure parallel alignment. CBCT scans were acquired with the mandible in 2 spatial orientations in relation to the X-ray projection plane (standard and modified) at 3 tube current levels: 5, 8, and 11 mA. CBCT scans were repeated without the implant and were reconstructed with and without MAR. The mean voxel and noise values of each tube were obtained and compared using multi-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test (α = 0.05). Results: Mean voxel values were significantly higher and noise values were significantly lower in the modified orientation than in the standard orientation (P<0.05). MAR activation and tube current levels did not show significant differences in most cases of the modified spatial orientation and in the absence of the dental implant (P>0.05). Conclusion Modifying the spatial orientation of the head increased brightness and reduced spatial orientation noise in adjacent regions of a dental implant, with no influence from the tube current level and MAR.

Purpose: This study evaluated the impact of artifacts generated by metal crowns on the detection of proximal caries lesions in teeth at various distances using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Additionally, the diagnostic impacts of tube current and metal artifact reduction (MAR) were investigated. Materials and Methods: Thirty teeth were arranged within 10 phantoms, each containing 1 first premolar, 1 second premolar, and 1 second molar. A sound first molar (for the control group) or a tooth with a metal crown was placed. Of the 60 proximal surfaces evaluated, 15 were sound and 45 exhibited enamel caries. CBCT scans were acquired using an OP300 Maxio unit (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland), while varying the tube current (4, 8, or 12.5 mA) and enabling or disabling MAR. Five observers assessed mesial and distal surfaces using a 5-point scale. Multi-way analysis of variance was employed for data comparison, with P<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) varied from 0.40 to 0.60 (sensitivity: 0.28-0.45, specificity: 0.44-0.80). The diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by the presence of a metal crown, milliamperage, or MAR (P>0.05). However, the overall AUC and specificity were significantly lower for surfaces near a crown (P<0.05). Conclusion CBCT-based caries detection was not influenced by the presence of a metal crown, variations in milliamperage, or MAR activation. However, the diagnostic accuracy was low and was further diminished for surfaces near a crown. Consequently, CBCT is not recommended for the detection of incipient caries lesions.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to objectively detect simulated tooth ankylosis using a novel method involving cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Tooth ankylosis was simulated in single-rooted human permanent teeth, and CBCT scans were acquired at different current levels (5, 6.3, and 8 mA) and voxel sizes (0.08, 0.125, and 0.2). In axial reconstructions, a line of interest was perpendicularly placed over the periodontal ligament space of 21 ankylosed and 21 non-ankylosed regions, and the CBCT grey values of all voxels along the line of interest were plotted against their corresponding X-coordinates through a line graph to generate a profile. The image contrast was increased by 30% and 60% and the profile assessment was repeated. The internal area of the resulting parabolas was obtained from all images and compared between ankylosed and non-ankylosed regions under different contrast enhancement conditions, voxel sizes, and mA levels using multi-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test (α=0.05). Results: The internal area of the parabolas of all non-ankylosed regions was significantly higher than that of the ankylosed regions (P<0.05). Contrast enhancement led to a significantly greater internal area of the parabolas of non-ankylosed regions (P<0.05). Overall, voxel size and mA did not significantly influence the internal area of the parabolas (P>0.05). Conclusion The proposed novel method revealed a relevant degree of applicability in the detection of simulated tooth ankylosis; increased image contrast led to greater detectability.