A Wenzel1, A Møystad. 1. Department of Oral Radiology, Royal Dental College, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the opinions of Norwegian dental practitioners regarding the use of solid state sensor and storage phosphor (SP) detectors for intra-oral radiography. METHODS: A questionnaire received from 2199 dentists 309 (219 male, 86 female, four unknown) confirmed the use of digital radiography in their practices. RESULTS: Sixty-one per cent of dentists used a SP and 35% a sensor system; four (1.3%) used both. Approximately 50% of dentists had experienced technical problems and 33% had needed repairs. Almost all dentists stored their images on the hard disk (>97%) and 81% made a daily back-up. More sensor than SP users found difficulty with the positioning holder. Two-thirds of dentists reported digital image quality was the same or better than film. More Digora (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland) users reported better image quality than Denoptix (Gendex, Milan, Italy) or Digident (Digident, Nesher, Israel) users. Mean reduction in exposure time was 55% (range 2-90%), although 17 dentists stated that no reduction was achieved. Approximately half of the sensor users also used film and 38% of the SP users. Film was used more often for bitewing examination by the sensor users (27%) than by the SP users (4%). Mean time saved by the sensor users was 36 min/day (range 10-120) and by the SP users 25 min/day (range 5-120). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dentists felt that digital image quality was the same or better than film and exposure and examination times were reduced. However, technical problems and repairs were common.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the opinions of Norwegian dental practitioners regarding the use of solid state sensor and storage phosphor (SP) detectors for intra-oral radiography. METHODS: A questionnaire received from 2199 dentists 309 (219 male, 86 female, four unknown) confirmed the use of digital radiography in their practices. RESULTS: Sixty-one per cent of dentists used a SP and 35% a sensor system; four (1.3%) used both. Approximately 50% of dentists had experienced technical problems and 33% had needed repairs. Almost all dentists stored their images on the hard disk (>97%) and 81% made a daily back-up. More sensor than SP users found difficulty with the positioning holder. Two-thirds of dentists reported digital image quality was the same or better than film. More Digora (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland) users reported better image quality than Denoptix (Gendex, Milan, Italy) or Digident (Digident, Nesher, Israel) users. Mean reduction in exposure time was 55% (range 2-90%), although 17 dentists stated that no reduction was achieved. Approximately half of the sensor users also used film and 38% of the SP users. Film was used more often for bitewing examination by the sensor users (27%) than by the SP users (4%). Mean time saved by the sensor users was 36 min/day (range 10-120) and by the SP users 25 min/day (range 5-120). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dentists felt that digital image quality was the same or better than film and exposure and examination times were reduced. However, technical problems and repairs were common.
Authors: Daniela Pita De Melo; Adriana Dibo Cruz; Saulo Leonardo Sousa Melo; Julyanna Filgueiras GonçAlves De Farias; Francisco Haiter-Neto; Solange Maria De Almeida Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2015-04-01
Authors: Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd Yusof; Nur Liyana Abdul Rahman; Amiza Aqiela Ahmad Asri; Noor Ilyani Othman; Ilham Wan Mokhtar Journal: Imaging Sci Dent Date: 2017-12-12