IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Direct vs. Indirect Intra-oral Digital Radiography
Objectives: During the last decade, dental radiography has become digital. The two most common techniques are Charge Couple Device technique (CCD, “Sensors”, also called Direct technique), and Photo-Stimulable Phosphor (PSP, “phosphor plates”, also called Indirect technique). Each method has its known advantages and disadvantages, but so far no practical study has compared the two. The objective of this study was to compare the quality and practicalities of the two methods, using “split mouth” approach.
Methods: Participants were patients referred to the Oral Maxillofacial Imaging unit by the dental student’s clinic for intraoral Full Mouth Series (FMS). After signing consent, each FMS was performed by the patient’s student, using the two methods, half mouth for each. The order of techniques was systematically selected. Patients with gag reflex were excluded. The performing students filled questionnaires addressing working time, patient comfort and satisfaction (on a 5 points scale), number of retakes and previous experience. All FMS were also evaluated by two independent experienced and pre-calibrated dental radiographic instructors for assessing the FMS’s quality (exposure and positioning errors, contrast and overall satisfaction).
Results: This study included 26 FMS, performed by 23 students. According to students’ questionnaire data, using the PSP took longer (mean time for half mouth 37.9 min, vs. 35.6), but demanded fewer retakes (5.4 vs. 6.5); both patients and students were more satisfied with the PSP technique compared to CCD (3.3 vs. 2.9 for patients; 3.9 vs. 3.3 for students). Analysis of the instructors’ questionnaire is yet to be performed.
Conclusions: Our finding showed that the PSP technique was better accepted by both students and patients. However, the level of exposure at the CCD technique was lower. The radiographic difference between the two methods would complete the analysis and provide more reliable recommendations for the dental community.
Methods: Participants were patients referred to the Oral Maxillofacial Imaging unit by the dental student’s clinic for intraoral Full Mouth Series (FMS). After signing consent, each FMS was performed by the patient’s student, using the two methods, half mouth for each. The order of techniques was systematically selected. Patients with gag reflex were excluded. The performing students filled questionnaires addressing working time, patient comfort and satisfaction (on a 5 points scale), number of retakes and previous experience. All FMS were also evaluated by two independent experienced and pre-calibrated dental radiographic instructors for assessing the FMS’s quality (exposure and positioning errors, contrast and overall satisfaction).
Results: This study included 26 FMS, performed by 23 students. According to students’ questionnaire data, using the PSP took longer (mean time for half mouth 37.9 min, vs. 35.6), but demanded fewer retakes (5.4 vs. 6.5); both patients and students were more satisfied with the PSP technique compared to CCD (3.3 vs. 2.9 for patients; 3.9 vs. 3.3 for students). Analysis of the instructors’ questionnaire is yet to be performed.
Conclusions: Our finding showed that the PSP technique was better accepted by both students and patients. However, the level of exposure at the CCD technique was lower. The radiographic difference between the two methods would complete the analysis and provide more reliable recommendations for the dental community.