Sensitometric and image quality performance of “rapid” intraoral film processing techniques

Abstract

A number of products are available to dentists for the rapid production of intraoral radiographic films but there is little information on their relative merits. This study evaluated the performance of five "rapid" film processing products commonly used by British dentists in comparison with standard Kodak manual processing. Two Perspex contrast-detail test objects were made in order to investigate threshold contrast. Film speed, film gradient, limiting resolution and threshold contrast results are presented. Rapid processing systems possessed lower film speed when compared with Kodak Ektaspeed film and standard Kodak processing. The speed of E-speed film was found to be lower than that of D-speed film when used with Westone "Rapid X-ray" processing. Overall image quality was generally similar for all film/processing combinations evaluated, with the exception of Nix QP which gave markedly poorer image quality.

Radiological assessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digital panoramic radiography

“…Disadvantages include the size, shape and stiffness of the sensor and lower image resolution (Huumonen & Ørstavik 2002). Conventional intraoral films have a spatial resolution exceeding 20 line pairs per millimetre (Czajka et al. 1996), whilst the corresponding resolution for photostimulable phosphors is <7 line pairs per millimetre (Stamatakis et al.…”

“…Disadvantages include the size, shape and stiffness of the sensor and lower image resolution (Huumonen & Ørstavik 2002). Conventional intraoral films have a spatial resolution exceeding 20 line pairs per millimetre (Czajka et al 1996), whilst the corresponding resolution for photostimulable phosphors is <7 line pairs per millimetre (Stamatakis et al 2000), and that of the newest charge-coupled devices up to 20 line pairs per millimetre (Farman & Farman 1999). This difference in resolution of details may have an effect on subtle features such as thin trabeculae, the lamina dura and the periodontal ligament.…”

An ex vivo comparison of conventional and digital radiography for perceived image quality of root fillings

“…Faster films have larger grain sizes that result in loss of image sharpness and detail (Langland & Sippy 1973). It is known that Digora Ò can produce an image around 7 line pairs mm )1 while conventional films can attain a spatial resolution exceeding 20 line pairs mm )1 (Czajka et al 1996, Huda et al 1997. The difference in spatial resolution therefore may explain the superiority of E-and F-speed films over original Digora images with regard to the evaluation of quality of root fillings.…”

Radiological aspects of apical periodontitis

“…Conventional intraoral films have a spatial resolution exceeding 20 line pairs per millimeter (88), while the corresponding resolution for photostimulable phosphors is less than 7 line pairs per millimeter (89), and that of the newest charge‐coupled devices (CCD) up to 20 line pairs per millimeter (90). This difference of resolution of details may have an effect on subtle features such as thin trabeculae, the lamina dura and the periodontal ligament.…”