Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Sep;35(5):315-8.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/29518441.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

R Ramamurthy et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006 Sep.

Abstract

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< or =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< or =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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources