ABSTRACT
METHODS AND MATERIALS: 20 operators obtained intraoral radiographs of four regions (bitewing, upper molar, lower molar and upper anterior) in five mannequins, using HH and WM devices. Beam-aiming devices were fitted with metal cross-wires to project on image sensors. Deviation from ideal perpendicular incidence of beam was calculated, based on positions of cross-wires relative to gold-standard positions (i.e. average of 10-fold precise aiming by authors via WM system). Analytic models relied on Wilcoxon signed-rank test and mixed model analyses. RESULTS: Mean deviations from perfect aim were 2.88Ë (± 1.80Ë) for WM and 3.06Ë (± 1.90Ë) for HH methods. The difference among all operators (HH vs WM) was 0.17Ë (± 2.48Ë), which was not significant. Seven operators showed better aim by HH device (13 by WM system); and in one instance, this difference was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Aiming precision proved similar for HH and WM methods of intraoral radiography, although individual operators may perform better using one of these modalities. Aim is not an expected limiting factor for image quality in HH (vs WM) diagnostics.
