Julia Nitschke1, Lara Schorn2, Henrik Holtmann3, Uwe Zeller4, Jörg Handschel5,6, David Sonntag7, Julian Lommen8. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany. 2. Department of Oral-, Maxillo- and Plastic Facial Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany. Lara.Schorn@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Malteser Clinic St. Johannes, Johannisstraße 21, 47198, Duisburg, Germany. 4. Consulting Engineer for the Study Design and Regulatory Aspects, Rissegger Steige 139, 88400, Biberach, Germany. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kaiserteich Medical Center, Reichstr. 59, 40217, Duesseldorf, Germany. 6. Medical School, Heinrich-Heine University, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany. 7. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Parodontology and Endodontology, Heinrich Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, Duesseldorf, Germany. 8. Department of Oral-, Maxillo- and Plastic Facial Surgery, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a handheld (HH) X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) is capable of producing equivalent or even superior X-ray image quality in comparison to a wall-mounted (WM) dental X-ray unit (Heliodent Plus) on the basis of objectifiable image quality parameters. METHODS: Anatomical, radiological and biological dental X-ray image quality parameters of a handheld dental X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2, Kavo Kerr, Biberach, Germany) were compared to a standard wall-mounted dental X-ray unit (Heliodent Plus, Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany) using a maxillofacial phantom. In addition, the effect of different operators (dentists, dental students, dental assistants) on the dental X-ray image quality was measured. RESULTS: HH and WM devices showed comparable image quality for anterior teeth, premolars, molars and bitewing images. During the two-month investigational period, the radiation exposure level for the operator of the Nomad Pro 2 was 0.1 mSv for 203 images. Dentists as the highest trained personnel enrolled in the study achieved better image quality with the Nomad Pro 2 as compared to dental students and dental assistants, especially in the molar region. CONCLUSIONS: A HH device delivers a comparable image quality to a WM device. In addition, there seem to be short learning curves with regard to image acquisition when using a handheld device, which is further minimised by the previous training of the operating personnel. HH dental X-ray devices, such as the Nomad Pro 2 are a promising adjunct for dental radiology in cases where WM units are of limited practicability.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a handheld (HH) X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) is capable of producing equivalent or even superior X-ray image quality in comparison to a wall-mounted (WM) dental X-ray unit (Heliodent Plus) on the basis of objectifiable image quality parameters. METHODS: Anatomical, radiological and biological dental X-ray image quality parameters of a handheld dental X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2, Kavo Kerr, Biberach, Germany) were compared to a standard wall-mounted dental X-ray unit (Heliodent Plus, Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany) using a maxillofacial phantom. In addition, the effect of different operators (dentists, dental students, dental assistants) on the dental X-ray image quality was measured. RESULTS: HH and WM devices showed comparable image quality for anterior teeth, premolars, molars and bitewing images. During the two-month investigational period, the radiation exposure level for the operator of the Nomad Pro 2 was 0.1 mSv for 203 images. Dentists as the highest trained personnel enrolled in the study achieved better image quality with the Nomad Pro 2 as compared to dental students and dental assistants, especially in the molar region. CONCLUSIONS: A HH device delivers a comparable image quality to a WM device. In addition, there seem to be short learning curves with regard to image acquisition when using a handheld device, which is further minimised by the previous training of the operating personnel. HH dental X-ray devices, such as the Nomad Pro 2 are a promising adjunct for dental radiology in cases where WM units are of limited practicability.
Authors: Maria Cristina Firetto; Antonella Abbinante; Ersilia Barbato; Massimo Bellomi; Pietro Biondetti; Andrea Borghesi; Maurizio Bossu'; Piero Cascone; Daniela Corbella; Vincenzo Di Candido; Paolo Diotallevi; Giampiero Farronato; Antonio Federici; Massimo Gagliani; Claudio Granata; Mario Guerra; Antonio Magi; Maria Cristina Maggio; Stefano Mirenghi; Michele Nardone; Daniela Origgi; Luigi Paglia; Lorenzo Preda; Osvaldo Rampado; Luigi Rubino; Sergio Salerno; Angelo Sodano; Alberto Torresin; Laura Strohmenger Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-05-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Julian Lommen; Lara Schorn; Julia Nitschke; Christoph Sproll; Uwe Zeller; Norbert R Kübler; Jörg Handschel; Henrik Holtmann Journal: Saudi Dent J Date: 2021-09-20