OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitometric properties, diagnostic efficacy and image quality of the InSight (F-speed) and Ektaspeed Plus (E-speed) dental X-ray films (Kodak Eastman Co, Rochester, USA). METHODS: Characteristic curves were constructed, using manual and automatic processing, in order to compare film speed and average gradient. The diagnostic yield was compared by assessment of endodontic file length. Endodontic files, sizes 10 and 15, were placed at the root apex or 1.5 mm short. The exposure time for the InSight films was 20% lower than that of Ektaspeed Plus. Seven dentists rated the position of file tip using a 5-point confidence scale. ROC data were analysed by means of analysis of variance. The null hypothesis was rejected when P<0.05. In order to compare the image quality, 100 pairs of bitewing radiographs of the left (using Ektaspeed Plus) and the right sides (using InSight) of the same patient were made. Four dentists viewed the radiographs and the data were analysed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance. RESULTS: InSight was faster than Ektaspeed Plus. It was an E-speed film when processed in manual conditions and an F-speed film when processed automatically. The films had comparable average gradient. No significant difference was found in the diagnostic yield using the two films (P=0.648). Two observers showed a significant preference for Ektaspeed Plus. CONCLUSIONS: The first results of the new InSight film are promising: the exposure time can be reduced by 20% in comparison with Ektaspeed Plus at no detriment to diagnostic efficacy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitometric properties, diagnostic efficacy and image quality of the InSight (F-speed) and Ektaspeed Plus (E-speed) dental X-ray films (Kodak Eastman Co, Rochester, USA). METHODS: Characteristic curves were constructed, using manual and automatic processing, in order to compare film speed and average gradient. The diagnostic yield was compared by assessment of endodontic file length. Endodontic files, sizes 10 and 15, were placed at the root apex or 1.5 mm short. The exposure time for the InSight films was 20% lower than that of Ektaspeed Plus. Seven dentists rated the position of file tip using a 5-point confidence scale. ROC data were analysed by means of analysis of variance. The null hypothesis was rejected when P<0.05. In order to compare the image quality, 100 pairs of bitewing radiographs of the left (using Ektaspeed Plus) and the right sides (using InSight) of the same patient were made. Four dentists viewed the radiographs and the data were analysed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance. RESULTS: InSight was faster than Ektaspeed Plus. It was an E-speed film when processed in manual conditions and an F-speed film when processed automatically. The films had comparable average gradient. No significant difference was found in the diagnostic yield using the two films (P=0.648). Two observers showed a significant preference for Ektaspeed Plus. CONCLUSIONS: The first results of the new InSight film are promising: the exposure time can be reduced by 20% in comparison with Ektaspeed Plus at no detriment to diagnostic efficacy.
Authors: Fabiano Pachêco de Carvalho; M M F da Silveira; M A G Frazão; S T de Santana; M L dos Anjos Pontual Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.419