Cargando…

Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nitschke, Julia, Schorn, Lara, Holtmann, Henrik, Zeller, Uwe, Handschel, Jörg, Sonntag, David, Lommen, Julian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Singapore 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32232719
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00434-1
_version_ 1783668173442121728
author Nitschke, Julia
Schorn, Lara
Holtmann, Henrik
Zeller, Uwe
Handschel, Jörg
Sonntag, David
Lommen, Julian
author_facet Nitschke, Julia
Schorn, Lara
Holtmann, Henrik
Zeller, Uwe
Handschel, Jörg
Sonntag, David
Lommen, Julian
author_sort Nitschke, Julia
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7985112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Singapore
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79851122021-04-12 Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography Nitschke, Julia Schorn, Lara Holtmann, Henrik Zeller, Uwe Handschel, Jörg Sonntag, David Lommen, Julian Oral Radiol Original Article 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. Springer Singapore 2020-03-30 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7985112/ /pubmed/32232719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00434-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nitschke, Julia
Schorn, Lara
Holtmann, Henrik
Zeller, Uwe
Handschel, Jörg
Sonntag, David
Lommen, Julian
Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
title Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
title_full Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
title_fullStr Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
title_full_unstemmed Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
title_short Image quality of a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
title_sort image quality of a portable x-ray device (nomad pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32232719
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00434-1
work_keys_str_mv AT nitschkejulia imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography
AT schornlara imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography
AT holtmannhenrik imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography
AT zelleruwe imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography
AT handscheljorg imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography
AT sonntagdavid imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography
AT lommenjulian imagequalityofaportablexraydevicenomadpro2comparedtoawallmounteddeviceinintraoralradiography