Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aim: Processing conditions affect sensitometric properties of X-ray films. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the sensitometric characteristics of InSight (IP), a new F-speed film, in fresh and used processing solutions in dental office condition and compare them with Ektaspeed Plus (EP).

Materials and Methods: In this experimental in vitro study, an aluminium step wedge was used to construct characteristic curves for InSight and Ektaspeed Plus films (Kodak Eastman, Rochester, USA).All films were processed in Champion solution (X-ray Iran, Tehran, Iran) both manually and automatically in a period of six days. Unexposed films of both types were processed manually and automatically to determine base plus fog density. Speed and film contrast were measured according to ISO definition. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and T tests with P<0.05 as the level of significance.

Results: IP was 20 to 22% faster than EP and showed to be an F-speed film when processed in automatic condition and E-F film when processed manually. Also it was F-speed in fresh solution and E-speed in old solution. IP and EP contrasts were similar in automatic processing but EP contrast was higher when processed manually. Both EP and IP films had standard values of base plus fog (<0.35) and B+F densities were decreased in old solution.

Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, InSight is a F-speed film with a speed of at least 20% greater than Ektaspeed. In addition, it reduces patient exposure with no damage to image quality.

Background and Aim: In recent decades many guidelines has been conducted by radiation protection organizations about radiation protection in dentistry. This study was designed to evaluate the observance of these guidelines in educational clinics of all dental schools in Iran.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study a questionnaire based on National Radiation Protection guidelines was conducted. The questionnaire consisted of questions about radiation protection principles in dental radiography that is needed for patients and personnel protection and quality control of radiological instruments. The questionnaires were completed by the responsible person of each radiology department of dental schools (18 schools). After gathering the data, the results were compared with radiation protection standards.
Results: There was proper condition in the case of the existence of radiation protection facilities, such as lead apron, thyroid shield and lead impacted walls. However, personnel rarely use these facilities. Usage of high speed films and existence of automatic processor in dental schools was an appreciable point. The main problem was related to the lack of regular quality control programs.
Conclusion: The observance of radiation protection regulations in radiology departments of dental schools was proper. But majority of departments had no regular quality control programs and the use of digital systems in dental radiography was not common.