DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Akdeniz, B. G.
Right arrow Articles by Lomcali, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Akdeniz, B. G.
Right arrow Articles by Lomcali, G.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 27, Issue 2 102-106, Copyright © 1998 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions

B. G. Akdeniz and G. Lomcali
Department of Oral Diagnosis & Radiology, School of Dentistry, Ege University, Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of different processing solutions using an automatic processor for dental radiography. STUDY DESIGN: One brand of dental X-ray film (Minimax, Chicago, IL, USA) was developed in an automatic processor using four different brands of processing solution: Megasan (MGS, Megasan, Ankara, Turkey), (HAC, Ankara, Turkey), Fuji (Fuji Medical, Hacettepe Cedex, France) and RP X-Omat (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) at a range of temperatures. Performance was evaluated with respect to base plug fog density, relative speed and contrast. RESULTS: All solutions produced acceptable base plus fog values. MGS produced significantly greater densities (P < 0.05) than the other three solutions. Contrast obtained with Kodak and Fuji solutions was less than with MGS and HAC. Developing temperature recommended by the manufacturer of the processor were found to be higher than that needed to achieve a clinically acceptable film. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the processor and processing solutions used, exposure time and processing temperature can be modified while maintaining image quality. The cheapest processing solution (MGS) gave the same results as the more expensive.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1998 by the British Institute of Radiology.