|
KMID : 1024020220520010093
|
|
Imaging Science in Dentistry
2022 Volume.52 No. 1 p.93 ~ p.101
|
|
|
Clinical comparison of intraoral CMOS and PSP detectors in terms of time efficiency, patient comfort, and subjective image quality
|
|
Kamburoglu Kivanc
Samunahmetoglu Ercin
Eratam Nejlan
Sonmez Gul
Karahan Sevilay
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose: This study compared the effectiveness of complementary metal-oxide semiconductors (CMOS) and photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates as intraoral imaging systems in terms of time efficacy, patient comfort, and subjective image quality assessment in real clinical settings.
Materials and Methods: Fifty-eight patients (25 women and 33 men) were included. Patients were referred for a full-mouth radiological examination including 1 bitewing radiograph (left and right) and 8 periapical radiographs for each side (left maxilla/mandible and right maxilla/mandible). For each patient, 1 side of the dental arch was radiographed using a CMOS detector, whereas the other side was radiographed using a PSP detector, ensuring an equal number of left and right arches imaged by each detector. Clinical application time, comfort/pain, and subjective image quality were assessed for each detector. Continuous variables were summarized as mean±standard deviation. Differences between detectors were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance. P<0.05 was accepted as significant.
Results: The mean total time required for all imaging procedures with the CMOS detector was significantly lower than the mean total time required for imaging procedures with PSP (P<0.05). The overall mean patient comfort scores for the CMOS and PSP detectors were 4.57 and 4.48, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The performance of both observers in subjectively assessing structures was significantly higher when using CMOS images than when using PSP images for all regions (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The CMOS detector was found to be superior to the PSP detector in terms of clinical time efficacy and subjective image quality.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Radiography, Dental, Digital, Time and Motion Studies, Patient Comfort, Quality Control
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
 
|
|