A Paradigm Shift from Mounted Intra-Oral Periapical Radiography to Hand-Held X-Ray Device: A Review

Handheld X-ray devices are now offered in dental practice. Handheld X-ray units challenge the concept of a restricted access to the “controlled area” as they are held by the operator. Although an integral lead shield is provided, the distance from the body is variable, dependent on how the device is held. Currently, there are voluntary guidelines provided by the NCRP for dental radiation protection. Hand-Held portable X-ray devices are increasingly used for intraoral radiography.

Survey and analysis of optical density of dental films processed manually in portable dark chambers

Introduction Intraoral film processing can be performed manually using chambers manufactured from opaque material to prevent light from entering and consequently blurring images. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether portable darkrooms used in offices, clinics and educational institutions prevent the entry of light during the processing of intraoral films. Methods To this end, tests were carried out and images were analyzed by measuring the optical base-plus-fog densities (ODs) upon imaging. Results Review of the OD measurements revealed that in 70.7% of the evaluated manual portable revelation cameras, the base-plus-veil density of intraoral films was not in accord with that of the protocol reference. Discussion The results of this work can be used to identify chambers that are commonly exposed to light from fluorescent lamps and solar lighting.

Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional intraoral (CI) radiography, photostimulable phosphor (PSP) radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detection of strip and root perforations in endodontically treated teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mesial and distal roots of 72 recently extracted molar were endodontically prepared. Perforations were created in 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm diameter around the furcation of 48 roots (strip perforation) and at the external surface of 48 roots (root perforation); 48 roots were not perforated (control group). After root obturation, intraoral radiography, CBCT and MDCT were taken. Discontinuity in the root structure was interpreted as perforation. Two observers examined the images. Data were analyzed using Stata software and Chi-square test. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of CI, PSP, CBCT and MDCT in detection of strip perforations were 81.25% and 93.75%, 85.42% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 72.92% and 87.50%, respectively. For diagnosis of root perforation, the sensitivity and specificity were 87.50% and 93.75%, 89.58% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 81.25% and 87.50%, respectively. For detection of strip perforation, the difference between CBCT and all other methods including CI, PSP and MDCT was significant (p < 0.05). For detection of root perforation, only the difference between CBCT and MDCT was significant, and for all the other methods no statistically significant difference was observed. CONCLUSIONS: If it is not possible to diagnose the root perforations by periapical radiographs, CBCT is the best radiographic technique while MDCT is not recommended.