论文部分内容阅读
目的 对Digora(Soredex ,芬兰产 )和DenOptix(Densply ;美国产 )数字化磷光体存储图像板系统特别是其对牙齿牙合面标准化人工窝洞的检测力进行比较。方法 本研究使用DXTIRⅡ型仿头模 (AldersonResearchLaboratoryInc.,USA) ,曝光量在一定范围内变化。使用 1 / 2 ,1 ,2及 3号不锈钢圆钻在前磨牙及磨牙 牙合面制备病损。共采集 96个图像。在标准阅片条件下由 5名医师进行图像判读。医师不允许对数字图像进行调整。牙合翼片及根尖片以相同的序列进行判读。图像以随机方式给出 ,与曝光量及窝洞大小无关。要求观察者判定窝洞是否存在。为了解观察者之间及观察者不同时间判读的一致性 ,在一周后安排第二次读片。结果 对曝光宽容度来说 ,Digora图像板系统要小于DenOptix系统。在较小的曝光条件下 ,两种系统均可获得可供诊断的图像。两种系统软件比较 ,Digora软件更便于使用。在 牙合面人工窝洞的检测力方面 ,两种图像系统无统计学差异。结论 DenOptix磷光体存储图像板系统与Digora系统均可用于诊断
Objective To compare Digion (Soredex, Finland) and DenOptix (Densply; USA) digital phosphor storage imaging plate system, especially its ability to detect normal occlusal cavity of occlusal surface. Methods In this study, a DXTIR II-type Imitation Die (Alderson Research Laboratory Inc., USA) was used to change the amount of exposure within a certain range. Stainless steel round diamonds 1/2, 1, 2, and 3 were used to prepare lesions for premolar and molars. A total of 96 images were collected. Under the condition of standard readings, five doctors conducted interpretation of the images. Physicians do not allow adjustments to digital images. Occlusal and apical pieces of the same sequence of interpretation. Images are given in a random fashion, independent of exposure and hole size. Ask the observer to determine if a hole exists. In order to understand the observers and observers at different times to interpret the consistency of a week after the scheduled second reading. Results For exposure latitude, the Digora plate system is smaller than the DenOptix system. At smaller exposures, images are available for both systems. Digora software is easier to use than the two system softwares. There was no statistical difference between the two imaging systems in the detection of occlusal artificial cavities. Conclusion Both the DenOptix Phosphate Storage Image Plate System and the Digora System are available for diagnostics