Program including abstracts as pdf available here
Program including abstracts as pdf available here
Program including abstracts as pdf available here
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
OP 52<br />
Title<br />
EVALuATION OF THE PHySICAL PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT DIGITAL INTRAORAL SENSORS<br />
Authors<br />
W. AL-RAWI 1 , S. TEICH 2<br />
Affiliations<br />
1 University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, USA, 2 C<strong>as</strong>e Western School of Dental<br />
Medicine, Cleveland, USA<br />
Body<br />
Introduction<br />
Digital radiography h<strong>as</strong> transformed the way clinicians acquire radiographs. It allows practitioners<br />
to access and share radiographs through digital devices. Clinicians can manipulate the<br />
image and improve diagnosis and treatment planning. However, the many marketed technologies<br />
and intraoral sensors come in variety of configurations. Practitioners need objective<br />
benchmarks to make an informed decision regarding the right sensor to be incorporated into<br />
the practice.<br />
Objectives<br />
To evaluate and compare the physical design of latest CMOS intraoral sensors in order to develop<br />
objective benchmarks.<br />
Methods and Materials<br />
The latest intraoral sensors with all <strong>available</strong> sizes were provided by various vendors for the<br />
purpose of evaluation: E2V (XDR), RVG 6100 (Kodak), Platinum (Dexis), Schick Elite (Schick),<br />
ProSensor (Planmeca), Eva+ (Dent-X), XIOS Plus (Sirona), and GXS-700 (Gendex).<br />
The physical design evaluation included: <strong>available</strong> sensor sizes, number of wires in the cable,<br />
cable diameter, presence of a backscatter shield, presence of an interface box (connectivity),<br />
active area, physical dimensions, and active-to p<strong>as</strong>sive-surface area ratio.<br />
Results<br />
Objective benchmarks related to the physical characteristics were developed and tested. Different<br />
sensors have strengths and weaknesses in different are<strong>as</strong>, t<strong>here</strong>fore no single sensor can<br />
be defined <strong>as</strong> “ideal”.<br />
Conclusions and discussion<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are different factors that deserve consideration when selecting a sensor, such <strong>as</strong>: image<br />
quality, physical design, technical support, and cost. The data collected in this paper provide<br />
much needed benchmarks that will allow practitioners to objectively compare intraoral sensors.<br />
*Table with all the data is <strong>available</strong> and can be provided upon request<br />
Keywords<br />
Radiography, Dental, Digital<br />
60
Change language