DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
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 Ramamurthy, R
Right arrow Articles by Farman, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ramamurthy, R
Right arrow Articles by Farman, A.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2006) 35, 315-318
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/29518441

RESEARCH

Time and motion study: a comparison of two photostimulable phosphor imaging systems used in dentistry

R Ramamurthy*,1, CF Canning2, JP Scheetz3 and AG Farman1

1 Division of Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Surgical and Hospital Dentistry, University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA; 2 School of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; 3 Division of Biostatistics, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA

*Correspondence to: Dr Ramya Ramamurthy, Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Surgical and Hospital Dentistry, The University of Louisville School of Dentistry, 501 South Preston Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA; Email: ramya.ramamurthy{at}ucsf.edu

Received 11 April 2005; revised 7 November 2005; accepted 25 November 2005

Objectives: To compare two photostimulable phosphor (PSP) dental radiographic systems in terms of time efficiency in making full mouth intraoral X-ray surveys (FMS).

Methods: PSP systems compared were (1) DenOptix® (Kavo/Gendex, Des Plaines, IL) and (2) ScanX® (Air Techniques, Hicksville, NY). Twenty one FMS of a DXTRR® Manikin (Dentsply, Des Plaines, IL) were made with each of the systems. Time for each procedural step was determined using a stopwatch. Steps studied were: (1) plate erasure; (2) packaging; (3) positioning/exposure; (4) unpacking, loading processor, scanning; and (5) image transfer to virtual FMS mount. The first six test runs for each system were excluded to eliminate the learning curve period influencing results. An independent groups t-test was employed for statistical analysis. The a priori was set at P≤0.05.

Results: The total time involved in producing a FMS was not proven to be statistically significant comparing DenOptix® and ScanX®. The mean procedure time for DenOptix® was 31.2 min; for ScanX® it was 27.1 min. While the processing time with ScanX® (mean time: 3.9 min) was shorter than for DenOptix® (mean time =7.8 min), the opposite was true for the image transfer to FMS format with the time much shorter with DenOptix® using VixWin® software (mean time =2.0 min) compared with ScanX® using Vipersoft® (mean time =3.9 min). The differences between the systems for these two steps did prove to be statistically significant (P≤0.05).

Conclusions: Although the mean time to make a FMS was slightly shorter on average with ScanX® than DenOptix®, this difference was not proven to be statistically significant (P>0.05) in terms of time efficiency in producing a FMS.

Keywords: dental radiography; ergonomics; photostimulable phosphor; time and motion






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.