OBJECTIVE: To compare the subjective image quality of three intra-oral storage phosphor systems. METHODS: DenOptix (Dentsply/Gendex, Chicago, IL, USA), Digora (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland), and CD-Dent (DigiDent Digital Imaging Technologies, Nesher, Israel) were compared. Two different imaging plates (IPs), BAS300 and HR300 (Fuji Photo Film Co., Tokyo, Japan) were used with the DenOptix system. The specimen was the maxilla and surrounding soft tissues of an adult cadaver. Imaging was at 70 kVp and 8 mA with a focus-detector distance of 38 cm using an optical bench. The exposure times were varied and a panel of five dentists independently evaluated the images produced with each system/IP receptor for seven features; proximal caries, gingival soft tissues, cortical bone, root canal space, root apices, periodontal ligament space and endodontic instrument clarity on a three-interval confidence scale. The best three exposures were chosen according to the highest scores for each system. These images were re-read in random order a total of 10 times. Pair-wise comparisons were made by use of odd's ratio analysis. A 95% confidence interval was applied. RESULTS: Images made with the DenOptix system/BAS IP combination were perceived to have the best overall image quality. The DenOptix/HR IP combination and Digora were rated almost equally in second place. The DigiDent system was ranked inferior. The Digora was considered to be the best for demonstrating gingival soft tissues (P < 0.05) and the DenOptix/HR300 combination the best for clarity of endodontic instruments (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While the DenOptix/BAS 300 combination was rated highest overall, the ranking of image quality by modality was found to be task-dependent. Digora was rated best for demonstrating gingival soft tissues.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the subjective image quality of three intra-oral storage phosphor systems. METHODS: DenOptix (Dentsply/Gendex, Chicago, IL, USA), Digora (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland), and CD-Dent (DigiDent Digital Imaging Technologies, Nesher, Israel) were compared. Two different imaging plates (IPs), BAS300 and HR300 (Fuji Photo Film Co., Tokyo, Japan) were used with the DenOptix system. The specimen was the maxilla and surrounding soft tissues of an adult cadaver. Imaging was at 70 kVp and 8 mA with a focus-detector distance of 38 cm using an optical bench. The exposure times were varied and a panel of five dentists independently evaluated the images produced with each system/IP receptor for seven features; proximal caries, gingival soft tissues, cortical bone, root canal space, root apices, periodontal ligament space and endodontic instrument clarity on a three-interval confidence scale. The best three exposures were chosen according to the highest scores for each system. These images were re-read in random order a total of 10 times. Pair-wise comparisons were made by use of odd's ratio analysis. A 95% confidence interval was applied. RESULTS: Images made with the DenOptix system/BAS IP combination were perceived to have the best overall image quality. The DenOptix/HR IP combination and Digora were rated almost equally in second place. The DigiDent system was ranked inferior. The Digora was considered to be the best for demonstrating gingival soft tissues (P < 0.05) and the DenOptix/HR300 combination the best for clarity of endodontic instruments (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While the DenOptix/BAS 300 combination was rated highest overall, the ranking of image quality by modality was found to be task-dependent. Digora was rated best for demonstrating gingival soft tissues.
Authors: D P Melo; A Dos Anjos Pontual; S M de Almeida; P S F Campos; M C Alves; G M Tosoni Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.419