Article

Radiation exposure with the RVG-S and conventional intraoral X-ray film

Oral Radiology (Impact Factor: 0.15). 05/1994; 10(1):33-40. DOI: 10.1007/BF02348012

ABSTRACT The exposure required to obtain optimal image quality was determined using conventional intraoral x-ray film (Eastman Kodak,
Rochester, NY) and the RVG-S Radio VisioGraphy-S: Trophy Radiology, Vincennes, France) CCD-based intraoral radiographic imaging
system. The RVG-S permitted dose reductions of 50 to 65% for individual exposures in comparison with Ektaspeed film, and 73
to 76% when compared to Ultraspeed film. The dose dynamic for the RVG-S was 8.6 times narrower than that for conventional
film. Perception of low contrast details was not significantly different between either type of x-ray film and the RVG-S.

1 Follower
 · 
504 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tissue doses for a modified Rando head-and-neck phantom were measured for imaging with speed group E film with standardized aluminium filtration and the RVG-S both with and without added niobium filtration. Cylindrical holes drilled into the phantom's tissue-equivalent material permitted the placement of a small ionization chamber into anatomically correct sites representing the thyroid, parotid, submandibular and sublingual glands. To establish the necessary cone positions, angulations and time settings for each exposure, diagostically acceptable images of six teeth, representative of different intraoral regions, were made for a DXXTR mannequin. Entrance and exit points were marked and transferred to the phantom to allow reproducible repeat exposures. The RVG-S provided reductions in average skin entrance dose of 31 per cent to 39 per cent with standard aluminium filtration and 51 per cent to 60 per cent with the addition of niobium filtration to attenuate the beam. While dose reductions relative to E-speed film usage were found for deep tissue sites, these were site and projection specific. The cumulative reduction from use of the RVG-S without niobium filtration was 32 per cent. It was 42 per cent with additional niobium filtration. It should be noted, however, that adding niobium filtration resulted in increased dosages to the deeper soft tissues such as the thyroid gland.
    Australian Dental Journal 09/1997; 42(5):335 - 342. DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.1997.tb00140.x · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The manipulation of radiographic images is possible in digital radiograph, thus the exposure time can be reduced nevertheless the processing time is shorter if compared to conventional radiography. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the image clarity between conventional and digital intraoral radiograph. Methods: Digital and conventional radiographs were captured the image of an extracted maxillary incisor with constant set-ting of the x-ray source at 70 kVp and 5mAs. Then three series of the digital radiographic of the same specimen was captured at 66 kVp, 63 kVp, 60 kVp. Images were presented to 46 fourth year dental students to evaluate the image quality considering the clarity of tooth pattern. The percentage of observers determined which images were superior or same among digital or conven-tional were recorded. Results: Digital setting at 66 kVp images were rated as the most superior among all the 4 settings by 67.4% of observers fol-lowed by 65.2% for voltage setting 70 kVp, 63.0% for voltage setting 63 kVp and 56.5% for voltage setting 60 kVp. Although the percentage of choosing the most superior image started to be decreased in digital setting in 70 kVp and after 66 kVp howev-er, it was still better than conventional method. Conclusion: Digital radiographic image taking on extracted tooth specimen with the setting of 66 kVp was the most superior among other setting. Conventional radiography showed inferior to digital image at any setting. This study suggested that the image of digital radiography was superior to conventional radiographic.
    International Medical Journal (1994) 06/2013; 20(3):329-331. · 0.09 Impact Factor