Literature DB >> 22517998

Patient discomfort in bitewing examination with film and four digital receptors.

P M Jørgensen1, A Wenzel.   

Abstract

The aim was to compare patient discomfort during bitewing examination using five intra-oral receptors: a conventional film, a storage phosphor plate with a new soft cover, an already manufactured and sold sensor with a wire and two square and two rounded corners, a new version of a previously developed sensor with a wire and four square corners, and a newly developed sensor with a wire and four rounded corners. 60 patients participated in the study. The five receptors [a Kodak paper pack film (Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY), a DIGORA® Optime phosphor plate (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland), and SuniRay (Suni Medical Imaging, Inc., San Jose, CA), DIGORA Toto (Soredex) and Snapshot (Instrumentarium Dental, Tuusula, Finland) complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors] with differences in ergonomic shape were placed in the mouth for a bitewing examination for approximately 10 s. The patients rated their discomfort on a 100 mm visual analogue scale after having had each receptor positioned. There was no significant difference in patient discomfort score between the conventional film and the Snapshot sensor (p > 0.05). Both conventional film and Snapshot were significantly less uncomfortable than the other receptors (p < 0.05). No significant difference was seen between the storage phosphor plate and the SuniRay sensor (p > 0.05). The storage phosphor plate was significantly less uncomfortable than the DIGORA Toto sensor (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the perception of discomfort between the conventional film and an ergonomically shaped wired sensor with rounded corners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22517998      PMCID: PMC3729003          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/73402308

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  12 in total

1.  Image quality of digital and film radiographs in applications sent to the Dental Insurance Office in Sweden for treatment approval.

Authors:  Kristina Hellén-Halme; Per-Magnus Johansson; Jan Håkansson; Arne Petersson
Journal:  Swed Dent J       Date:  2004

2.  Comparison of three rating scales for measuring subjective phenomena in clinical research. I. Use of experimentally controlled auditory stimuli.

Authors:  Carmen Lara-Muñoz; Sergio Ponce De Leon; Alvan R Feinstein; Alicia Puente; Carolyn K Wells
Journal:  Arch Med Res       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.235

3.  Across- and within-session variability of ratings of painful contact heat stimuli.

Authors:  Raimi L Quiton; Joel D Greenspan
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 4.  Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ann Wenzel; Anne Møystad
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.331

5.  Evaluation of effect of 3D video glasses on perceived pain and unpleasantness induced by restorative dental treatment.

Authors:  B Bentsen; P Svensson; A Wenzel
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.931

6.  Audiovisual video eyeglass distraction during dental treatment in children.

Authors:  Diana Ram; Joseph Shapira; Gideon Holan; Florella Magora; Sarale Cohen; Esti Davidovich
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.677

7.  Patient comfort in periapical examination using digital receptors.

Authors:  A Gonçalves; V G Wiezel; M Gonçalves; J Hebling; E K Sannomiya
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.419

8.  Patient discomfort following periapical surgery.

Authors:  René Christiansen; Lise-Lotte Kirkevang; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2008-02

9.  The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain.

Authors:  Donald D Price; Patricia A McGrath; Amir Rafii; Barbara Buckingham
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  Bitewing examination with four digital receptors.

Authors:  G Bahrami; C Hagstrøm; A Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.419

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Radiographic modalities for diagnosis of caries in a historical perspective: from film to machine-intelligence supported systems.

Authors:  Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Benefits of using a photostimulable phosphor plate protective device.

Authors:  Graziela de Moura; Mariana Boessio Vizzotto; Priscila Fernanda da Silveira Tiecher; Nádia Assein Arús; Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Clinical comparison of intraoral CMOS and PSP detectors in terms of time efficiency, patient comfort, and subjective image quality.

Authors:  Kıvanç Kamburoğlu; Erçin Samunahmetoğlu; Nejlan Eratam; Gül Sönmez; Sevilay Karahan
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2022-02-11
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.