The comparison of the densitometric stability between E<sup>+</sup> and Insight intra oral films, which were processed by Champion and Teifsaz solutions

doi:10.4236/health.2011.311112

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.3, No.11, 668-671 (2011)

doi:10.4236/health.2011.311112

Health

The comparison of the densitometric stability between

E+ and Insight intra oral films, which were processed

by Champion and Teifsaz solutions*

Maryam Zangouei-Booshehri, Fatemeh Ezoddini-Ardakani, Farideh Zare Karizi#

Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran;

#Corresponding Aut hor: [email protected], [email protected]

Received 11 July 2011; revised 5 September 2011; accepted 14 October 2011.

ABSTRACT

Background and objective: Proper patient treat-

ment planning depends on correct diagnosis of

its disease which could be achieved by taking

high quality radiographs. Densitometric stability

and film processing have important effect on

the radiographs quality. The aim of the present

study was to compare the densitometric stabil-

ity of intra oral E+ and Insight film, which were

processed by Champion and Teifsaz solutions.

Materials and methods: A lab trial study was

conducted. Radiographic images were taken of

56 E and Insight through lead step-wedge. Films

were processed by new and in aging Champion

and Teifsaz solutions every four days. After 56

days, the radiographic density of each film was

calculated by Photoshop software. The contrast

of each image was calculated by distracting

maximum and minimum density. The resultant

data were coded in SPSS software and analyzed

by two-way variance analysis. Results: There is

significant difference between the mean of den-

sity of processed films with the two different

chemicals (Champion & Teifsaz) (P-value <

0.0001) that Champion was better than Teifsaz.

However, there is no significant difference be-

tween the density of E+ and Insight films (P-

value = 0.717). Conclusion: Densitometric sta-

bility of new Insight film is as the same as cur-

rently used E+ film and is better preserved with

Champion chemicals than Teifsaz solutions.

Keywords: Radiograp hic Density; Processing

Solutions; Dental Film; E and Insight

1. INTRODUCTION

Image acquisition with optimal quality and radiation

dosage as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) were

the major objectives of dental diagnostic radiology [1].

As result of dental radiology development, we had a

progressive increase in X-ray film speed and a conse-

quent reduction in radiation hazards. Image quality is

also influenced by the processing method and it has been

observed that depletion of processing chemicals can

have a deleterious effect on film densitometric properties.

[2].

X-ray films in medical dentistry had arranged alpha-

betically (A-F type) by their speed and Insight films be-

longed to F group and with suitable processing solution

lead to high quality radiological images. After film ex-

posing by X-ray radiation silver halide transformed into

the metal silver ingredients and made radiographic den-

sitometry due to blocking light transfer from light box.

[3].

Processing solution with additive substance were im-

portant factors in image densitometry and quality. Dif-

ferent film quality is related to differences in processing

solution and films which were used by dentists [4].

Most of film producing companies prepared suitable

processing solution and time or temperature for achiev-

ing to the best quality. In some cases due to decline of

processing solution or its expensive prices and use of

processing solution which made in the country, other

solution were used for processing films of specific com-

panies.

Present study was designed for comparing the density

stability of Insight and Ekta speed plus radiographic

films manually processed using fresh and depleted Cham-

pion and Teifsaz solution s.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

*Sponsor: This research was funded by Shahid Sadoughi University

Medical Sciences Yazd, Iran. This lab trial study was performed for comparison

M. Zangouei-Booshehri et al. / Health 3 (2011) 668-671

669669

impacts of Champion (X-ray Tehran-Iran) and Teifsaz

(Teifsaz, Tehran-Iran) processing solutions on densi-

tometric stability of two types of intra oral films includ-

ing Insight and Ekta speed plus films. Study was ap-

proved in ethical research committee of Shahid Sa-

doughi University of medical sciences and health ser-

vices.

An eight step Lead step-wedge was prepared .Images

of step wedge was made by intraoral tube (Planmeca

ProLin Helsinki-Finland-Prostyle) with 15 centimeters

distance between tube and film. Radiographic study was

performed according standard radiation which were got

from pilot study with radiation factor KVP = 60 and mA

= 8. Time factor was considered 0.25 Second for insight

and 0.4 S for Ekta speed plus.

All of 56 radiographs, processed. Developing, fixing

and washing times were measured with chronometer and

their temperature was recorded in consecutive 56 days

(14 series) with regular thermometer. Entire of films

were scanned with 8x Scanner (Genus, Thailand) with

300 pixels and transferred to CRT monitor (LG, Korea).

Densitometry of films was measured in Photoshop pro-

gram using info option according to Bashizadeh et al.

method [5]. Eight densitometric measurements were

obtained from each of eight film layer and mean of them

was considered as film density.

Study variables were entered into the SPSS11.5 soft-

ware and Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) was used

for comparing two different film densities. All P-values

less than 0.05 were assumed as significant.

3. RESULTS

Within the present study, mean of film densitometries

which were processed in Champion and Teifsaz solution

were measured and compared. Mean of density in Ekta

speed plus films which was processed in Champion so-

lution was significantly higher than Teifsaz solution

(55.6 ± 11.1 Vs 27.05 ± 30.4; P < 0.00). Mean of densi-

tometry for Insight films in Champion solution was sig-

nificantly higher than Teifsaz solution (56.5 ± 6.8 Vs

30.4 ± 25.8; P < 0.00).

For covering role of film type as confounding vari-

ables, we compared densitometry of both films with

each of processing solution. In our comparison densi-

tometry of Insight and Ekta speed plus films in Cham-

pion solution had no significant differences (P = 0.90).

As the same as Champion, Insight and Ekta speed plus

films in Teifsaz solution had no significant differences

(P = 0.70). In the other hand film types did not consider

as cofounding variables in above significant differences.

(Table 1)

In assessment of densitometric changes during study

period (56 days) in one of two type of solutions, there

was one sudden d ecline in Teifsaz densitometry (Graph

1 and 2) and lead to decrease in film visual quality and

noted decline was not observe in about Champion solu-

tion and its density was remained in acceptable ranges.

(Figures 1 and 2).

4. DISCUSSION

Processing of one film in different solutions can lead

to different contrast and density [6,7]. Syrtoponlos et al.

and Framan et al. in their study concluded that process-

ing solution had main role in quality of dental radiogra-

phies [8-10]. Zamani et al. in their study reported that

AGFA and Primex Films with Champion solution had

suitable density and contrast [11]. As we see in our study

density of both films which were processed with Cham-

pion solution s was higher than Teifsaz solution.

Results of our study showed that image density was

Table 1. Comparing film densitometry of E and F film in both

of processing solutions.

Film Solution P-value

E-T 0.07

F-T 0.67 E-C

F-C 0.09

F-C 0.03

E-T F-T 0.92

F-C F-T 0.04

E-C: E film in Champion processing solution; E-T: E film in Teifsaz

processing solution; F-C: F fi l m in Champion proc essing solution; F- T: film

in Champion Teifsaz proce s s ing solution.

Graph 1. Densitometry changes during study period in both

films and processing solutions.

M. Zangouei-Booshehri et al. / Health 3 (2011) 668-671

670

Graph 2. Film contrast changes during study period in both

films and processing solutions.

Figure 1. Error bar of densitometry changes during study pe-

riod in both films and processing solutions.

not significantly influenced by speed of dental films, as

reported by Farman T.T. et al. [11]. As we know density

of dental films is more related to their optimal exposure

factors rather than image processing time [12]. However

Haiter study in comparing Insight and Ekta speed plus

films for image quality found that Insight films were

more sensitive to processing solutions depletion than

Ekta speed plus [12]. On the other hand Insight films

which were introduced at 2000 and several studies were

performed for assessing its quality in compare with tra-

ditional Ekta speed plus films and reported that insight

film that need to 30% lower radiation than Ekta speed

plus films could replace its clinical usage [10].

Findings of our study confirmed that Champion solu-

tion usage for studies films. Similar with our findings,

Zamani et al. compared Agpha panoramic and Primex

Figure 2. Error bar of film contrast changes during study pe-

riod in both films and processing solutions

films with three processing solutions including Cham-

pion, Teifsaz and Darutasvir and found that Champion

solution was best solution for dental film processing [11].

We did not recommended Teifsaz solution due to low

densitometric stability.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Densitometric stability of new Insight film is as the

same as currently used E+ film and is better preserved

with Champion chemicals than Teifsaz solutions.

REFERENCES

[1] Bragger, U., Pasquali, L., Rylander, H. and Carnes, D.,

Kornman, K.S. (1988) Computer-assisted densitometric

image analysis in periodontal radiography. A methodo-

logical study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 15,

27-37. doi :1 0. 1111/ j.1600-051X.1988.tb01551.x

[2] Ortman, L.F., Dunford, R., McHenry, K. and Hausmann,

E. (985) Subtraction radiography and computer assisted

densitometric analyses of standardized radiographs. A

comparison study with 125I absorptiometry. Journal of

Periodontal Research, 120, 644-651.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1600-0765.1985.tb00849.x

[3] Fourmousis, I., Bragger, U., Burgin, W., Tonetti, M. and

Lang, N.P. (1994) Digital image processing. II. In vitro

quantitative evaluation of soft and hard peri-implant tis-

sue changes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 5, 105-

114. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050207.x

[4] Zubery, Y., Dove, S.B. and Ebersole, J. (1993) An in vitro

study of the characteristics of a computer-aided radio-

graphic evaluation (CARE) system for longitudinal as-

sessment of density changes. Journal of Periodontal Re-

search, 28, 233-240.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1600-0765.1993.tb02089.x

M. Zangouei-Booshehri et al. / Health 3 (2011) 668-671

671671

[5] Basizadeh Fakhar, H. and Fatemi Tabar, S. (2004) An

evaluation on accuracy of the indirect digital image den-

sitometry by modified photoshop software. Journal of

Density, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 17, 5-11.

[6] Woo, B.M., Zee, K.Y., Chan, F.H. and Corbet, E.F. (2003)

In vitro calibration and validation of a digital subtraction

radiography system using scanned images. Journal of

Clinical Periodontology, 30, 114-118.

doi:10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.00236.x

[7] Stuart, C.W. and Michael, J.P. (2004) Oral Radiology

principles and Interpretation. Elsevier Philadephia,

Mosby.

[8] Syriopoulos, K., Velders, X.L., Sanderink, G.C., van

Ginkel, F.C. and van der Stelt, P.F. (1999) Effects of de-

veloper exhaustion on the sensitometric properties of

four dental films. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 28, 80-

88. doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600416

[9] Syriopoulos, K., Velders, X.L., Sanderink, G.C., van

Ginkel, F.C. and van der Stelt, P.F. (1999) Sensitometric

evaluation of four dental X-ray films using five process-

ing solutions. Dentomaxillofacial R a di o lo gy, 28, 73-79.

doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600415

[10] Farman, T.T. and Farman, A.G. (2000) Evaluation of a

new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing

solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.

Dentomaxillofacial R a d i o l o gy, 29, 41-45.

doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600499

[11] Zamaninaser, A., Kazemi, K. and Badri, F. (2006) Den-

sitometric evaluation of visual characteristic of two

X-ray panoramic films with three different processing

solutions. Journal of Dentistry (Shiraz University of

Medical Sciences), 7, 131-137.

[12] Bushong, S.C. (2001) Radiologic Science for technolo-

gists. 7th Edition, Mosby, St Louis.