HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 130, No 2, 211-218. © 1999 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by PLATIN, E. Articles by LUDLOW, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by PLATIN, E. Articles by LUDLOW, J. B. Related Collections Imaging

JADA Continuing Education

Background. Dental professionals were reluctant to accept Ektaspeed (Eastman Kodak Co.) intraoral film despite its X-radiation dose-sparing advantages for patients. One reason may have been Ektaspeed film’s known sensitivity to long-term storage as compared with that of Ultra-speed film (Eastman Kodak Co.). In 1995, Kodak replaced Ektaspeed with Ektaspeed Plus, claiming it had better resolution and higher stability than Ektaspeed, as well as equal exposure radiation. The authors compared film response to storage condition and time for Ultra-speed and Ektaspeed Plus films.

Methods. The authors stored 10 boxes of newly produced Ultra-speed and Ektaspeed Plus film in five locations. They conducted 23 image trials over a 26-month period, exposing each film with an aluminum step-wedge under controlled conditions. After processing the film, they measured density to calculate the film’s base + fog and contrast index values.

Results. The authors found significant differences in film type (P = .0002), processing status (P < .0001), storage location (P < .0001) and month of storage (P < .0001). They also found a film-type-by-location interaction (P < .0001) but did not find a film-type-by-processing interaction (P = .3271). Regression lines suggested that the optical density of base + fog levels rose more steeply for Ultra-speed film than they did for Ektaspeed Plus film. A significant association of decreasing contrast with increasing months of storage was seen with Ultra-speed film (P < .0001). There was a small increase in base + fog levels resulting from the use of used solutions over the course of the study.

Conclusions. Ektaspeed Plus film compared favorably with Ultra-speed film under all conditions.

Clinical Implications. The authors recommend the use of Ektaspeed Plus film for intraoral imaging, as its performance is comparable to that of Ultra-speed film while requiring half the X-radiation exposure to patients. Clinicians must ensure that the correct safelights and processing solutions are used before switching to the new film.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M Alcaraz, C Parra, Y Martinez Beneyto, E Velasco, and M Canteras Is it true that the radiation dose to which patients are exposed has decreased with modern radiographic films? Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2009; 38(2): 92 - 97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Martins, F Haiter Neto, and E. Whaites Analysis of digital images acquired using different phosphor storage plates (PSPs) subjected to varying reading times and storage conditions Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2003; 32(3): 186 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]