Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2026
Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites
Published on: November 9, 2014
Time and motion study: a comparison of two photostimulable phosphor imaging systems used in dentistry
R Ramamurthy1, C F Canning, J P Scheetz
1Division of Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Surgical and Hospital Dentistry, University of Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA. ramya.ramamurthy@ucsf.edu
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.
