1391 A Comparison of Technique Errors using Two Intra-oral Receptor Devices

Saturday, March 24, 2012: 9:45 a.m. - 11 a.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
S. MAURIELLO1, Q. TANG1, B. JOHNSON1, and E. PLATIN2, 1Dental Ecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 2Diagnostic Sciences and General Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Technological advances in radiographic intra-oral receptors have promoted the development of new receptor-holding devices. Since receptors have varying dimensions, film-holding devices may not be interchangeable with photostimulable phosphor (PSP) receptors.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the number and types of technique errors that occurred when using PSP sensors with a standard film-holding device and a PSP-designed device. 

Method: The Rinn XCP-ORA(Standard) and the Rinn Flip-Ray® PA device (Test) were compared.  Both devices were designed as paralleling beam alignment devices and used with rectangular collimation.  DenOptix® imaging plates (sizes 1 and 2) were used as receptors for all full mouth projections.  A total of 14 periapical (10-size 2 and 4-size 1) projections were exposed per full mouth series (FMX) on each DXTTR with each device (bitewings excluded).   Five Dental X-ray Teaching and Training Replicas (DXTTRs) with natural teeth were exposed by three experienced radiographers using both devices. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test to determine differences in the performance scores between the two devices. Technique errors (packet placement, vertical angulation, horizontal angulation, and cone centering) were reported using frequencies.  An experienced evaluator critiqued each projection with an intra-rater reliability of 0.87 Intra-Class Correlation.

Result: A total of 15 full mouth series (210 projections) were taken per device.  The mean performance scores per device were 88.4 (standard device) and 88.1 (test device) and were not statistically different (p=0.88).  Conecuts were the most common error observed in both the standard (36%) and test (43%) devices.  Packet placement errors occurred in projections using the standard (12%) and test (9%) devices.  Vertical and horizontal errors were <2% for both devices. 

Conclusion: Although the test device was designed for use with PSP sensors, these findings suggest that the standard device designed for film use would also be acceptable with PSP sensors.

Keywords: Radiology, Technique Errors and Technology
See more of: Diagnostic Sciences III
See more of: Diagnostic Sciences