Dexis platinum digital sensor plus#

The evaluation included various parameters related to the physical design of the sensors (vide infra). As part of the transition from traditional film to digital imaging, several CMOS digital intraoral sensors have been evaluated at Case Western Reserve University, School of Dental Medicine (CWRU). 5-8 The CMOS technology is currently implemented by several leading manufacturers in their latest products. The advantages and disadvantages of these technologies have been previously described. There are two main technologies on which direct sensors are based: charged couple device (CCD) and complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS). It should be noted that digital sensor configuration is not standardized across vendors, thus imaging specifications, optical properties, and physical design differ among different brands.Дirect digital sensors can be either wired to a computer or connected through a wireless network. When faced with the decision as to which intraoral digital technology should be implemented in practice, the average practitioner faces a dilemma: sorting through the various claims by different manufacturers touting their sensors. 3 The use of digital radiographic systems is on the rise, and most owners of these systems are satisfied with the equipment while experiencing increased productivity. 1,2Д«enefits and limitations of digital intraoral radiography have already been presented. Digital technologies provide clinically acceptable results comparable to the traditional films, while having other advantages such as the ability to store, communicate, and manipulate images, immediate evaluation of the image diagnostic quality, possible reduction in patient radiation exposure, and so on. Traditional intraoral films offer clinicians an easy and affordable means of diagnosis and treatment planning. Data presented in this paper establishes a benchmark for comparing the physical design of digital intraoral sensors. Conclusions: There was no sensor in the group that had the best physical design. For all sensor sizes, active imaging area was smaller compared with conventional films. The results of this study revealed that these details are not always available through the material provided by the manufacturers and are often not advertised. For most parameters tested, a lack of standardization exists in the industry. Results: There were variations among the physical design of different sensors. The sensors were evaluated for cable configuration, connectivity interface, presence of back-scattering radiation shield, plate thickness, active sensor area, and comparing the active imaging area to the outside casing and to conventional radiographic films.

Dexis platinum digital sensor plus#

Methods: Sensors tested included: XDR (Cyber Medical Imaging, Los Angeles, CA, USA), RVG 6100 (Carestream Dental LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA), Platinum (DEXIS LLC., Hatfield, PA, USA), CDR Elite (Schick Technologies, Long Island City, NY, USA), ProSensor (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), EVA (ImageWorks, Elmsford, NY, USA), XIOS Plus (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), and GXS-700 (Gendex Dental Systems, Hatfield, PA, USA). The purpose of this paper is to present the results of the evaluation of the physical design of eight CMOS digital intraoral sensors. Objective: Digital technologies provide clinically acceptable results comparable to traditional films while having other advantages such as the ability to store and manipulate images, immediate evaluation of the image diagnostic quality, possible reduction in patient radiation exposure, and so on.