Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions
To determine the performance of different processing solutions using an automatic processor for dental radiography. One brand of dental X-ray film (Minimax, Chicago, IL, USA) was developed in an automatic processor using four different brands of processing solution: Megasan (MGS, Megasan, Ankara, Tu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Dento-maxillo-facial radiology 1998-03, Vol.27 (2), p.102-106 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 106 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 102 |
| container_title | Dento-maxillo-facial radiology |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Akdeniz, B G Lomçali, G |
| description | To determine the performance of different processing solutions using an automatic processor for dental radiography.
One brand of dental X-ray film (Minimax, Chicago, IL, USA) was developed in an automatic processor using four different brands of processing solution: Megasan (MGS, Megasan, Ankara, Turkey), (HAC, Ankara, Turkey), Fuji (Fuji Medical, Hacettepe Cedex, France) and RP X-Omat (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) at a range of temperatures. Performance was evaluated with respect to base plug fog density, relative speed and contrast.
All solutions produced acceptable base plus fog values. MGS produced significantly greater densities (P < 0.05) than the other three solutions. Contrast obtained with Kodak and Fuji solutions was less than with MGS and HAC. Developing temperature recommended by the manufacturer of the processor were found to be higher than that needed to achieve a clinically acceptable film.
Depending on the processor and processing solutions used, exposure time and processing temperature can be modified while maintaining image quality. The cheapest processing solution (MGS) gave the same results as the more expensive. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600331 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79998386</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79998386</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c252t-b58041e5b9b8fa9026b142ea56d83f113beefe4164d3204be11d371913fade123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjztPwzAUhT2ASinMTEiZ2FJ8_ao98gapEgtIbJEdXxdXSVzsBIl_TxGdznA-fTqHkAugS6BcX5ft0vchL4WilHM4InPKJK01Zx8n5LSULaVUcKlmZGaUVHol5-T2HocSx9TjmGNb4bftJjvGNFQpVCFNucrWx7TJdve573c5tVhKHDZVSd30B5YzchxsV_D8kAvy_vjwdvdcr1-fXu5u1nXLJBtrJzUVgNIZp4M1lCkHgqGVymseALhDDChACc8ZFQ4BPF-BAR6sR2B8Qa7-vfsRXxOWseljabHr7IBpKs3KGKO5Vnvw8gBOrkff7HLsbf5pDqf5L52qWR8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79998386</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Akdeniz, B G ; Lomçali, G</creator><creatorcontrib>Akdeniz, B G ; Lomçali, G</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the performance of different processing solutions using an automatic processor for dental radiography.
One brand of dental X-ray film (Minimax, Chicago, IL, USA) was developed in an automatic processor using four different brands of processing solution: Megasan (MGS, Megasan, Ankara, Turkey), (HAC, Ankara, Turkey), Fuji (Fuji Medical, Hacettepe Cedex, France) and RP X-Omat (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) at a range of temperatures. Performance was evaluated with respect to base plug fog density, relative speed and contrast.
All solutions produced acceptable base plus fog values. MGS produced significantly greater densities (P < 0.05) than the other three solutions. Contrast obtained with Kodak and Fuji solutions was less than with MGS and HAC. Developing temperature recommended by the manufacturer of the processor were found to be higher than that needed to achieve a clinically acceptable film.
Depending on the processor and processing solutions used, exposure time and processing temperature can be modified while maintaining image quality. The cheapest processing solution (MGS) gave the same results as the more expensive.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0250-832X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600331</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9656875</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon ; Contrast Media ; Dentistry ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Quality Control ; Radiography, Dental ; Solutions - chemistry ; Technology, Radiologic - standards ; X-Ray Film</subject><ispartof>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology, 1998-03, Vol.27 (2), p.102-106</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c252t-b58041e5b9b8fa9026b142ea56d83f113beefe4164d3204be11d371913fade123</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9656875$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Akdeniz, B G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomçali, G</creatorcontrib><title>Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions</title><title>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology</title><addtitle>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</addtitle><description>To determine the performance of different processing solutions using an automatic processor for dental radiography.
One brand of dental X-ray film (Minimax, Chicago, IL, USA) was developed in an automatic processor using four different brands of processing solution: Megasan (MGS, Megasan, Ankara, Turkey), (HAC, Ankara, Turkey), Fuji (Fuji Medical, Hacettepe Cedex, France) and RP X-Omat (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) at a range of temperatures. Performance was evaluated with respect to base plug fog density, relative speed and contrast.
All solutions produced acceptable base plus fog values. MGS produced significantly greater densities (P < 0.05) than the other three solutions. Contrast obtained with Kodak and Fuji solutions was less than with MGS and HAC. Developing temperature recommended by the manufacturer of the processor were found to be higher than that needed to achieve a clinically acceptable film.
Depending on the processor and processing solutions used, exposure time and processing temperature can be modified while maintaining image quality. The cheapest processing solution (MGS) gave the same results as the more expensive.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Radiography, Dental</subject><subject>Solutions - chemistry</subject><subject>Technology, Radiologic - standards</subject><subject>X-Ray Film</subject><issn>0250-832X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNotjztPwzAUhT2ASinMTEiZ2FJ8_ao98gapEgtIbJEdXxdXSVzsBIl_TxGdznA-fTqHkAugS6BcX5ft0vchL4WilHM4InPKJK01Zx8n5LSULaVUcKlmZGaUVHol5-T2HocSx9TjmGNb4bftJjvGNFQpVCFNucrWx7TJdve573c5tVhKHDZVSd30B5YzchxsV_D8kAvy_vjwdvdcr1-fXu5u1nXLJBtrJzUVgNIZp4M1lCkHgqGVymseALhDDChACc8ZFQ4BPF-BAR6sR2B8Qa7-vfsRXxOWseljabHr7IBpKs3KGKO5Vnvw8gBOrkff7HLsbf5pDqf5L52qWR8</recordid><startdate>19980301</startdate><enddate>19980301</enddate><creator>Akdeniz, B G</creator><creator>Lomçali, G</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980301</creationdate><title>Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions</title><author>Akdeniz, B G ; Lomçali, G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c252t-b58041e5b9b8fa9026b142ea56d83f113beefe4164d3204be11d371913fade123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Radiography, Dental</topic><topic>Solutions - chemistry</topic><topic>Technology, Radiologic - standards</topic><topic>X-Ray Film</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Akdeniz, B G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomçali, G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Akdeniz, B G</au><au>Lomçali, G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions</atitle><jtitle>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</addtitle><date>1998-03-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>102</spage><epage>106</epage><pages>102-106</pages><issn>0250-832X</issn><abstract>To determine the performance of different processing solutions using an automatic processor for dental radiography.
One brand of dental X-ray film (Minimax, Chicago, IL, USA) was developed in an automatic processor using four different brands of processing solution: Megasan (MGS, Megasan, Ankara, Turkey), (HAC, Ankara, Turkey), Fuji (Fuji Medical, Hacettepe Cedex, France) and RP X-Omat (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA) at a range of temperatures. Performance was evaluated with respect to base plug fog density, relative speed and contrast.
All solutions produced acceptable base plus fog values. MGS produced significantly greater densities (P < 0.05) than the other three solutions. Contrast obtained with Kodak and Fuji solutions was less than with MGS and HAC. Developing temperature recommended by the manufacturer of the processor were found to be higher than that needed to achieve a clinically acceptable film.
Depending on the processor and processing solutions used, exposure time and processing temperature can be modified while maintaining image quality. The cheapest processing solution (MGS) gave the same results as the more expensive.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>9656875</pmid><doi>10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600331</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0250-832X |
| ispartof | Dento-maxillo-facial radiology, 1998-03, Vol.27 (2), p.102-106 |
| issn | 0250-832X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79998386 |
| source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE |
| subjects | Absorptiometry, Photon Contrast Media Dentistry Evaluation Studies as Topic Quality Control Radiography, Dental Solutions - chemistry Technology, Radiologic - standards X-Ray Film |
| title | Densitometric evaluation of four radiographic processing solutions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T05%3A27%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Densitometric%20evaluation%20of%20four%20radiographic%20processing%20solutions&rft.jtitle=Dento-maxillo-facial%20radiology&rft.au=Akdeniz,%20B%20G&rft.date=1998-03-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=102&rft.epage=106&rft.pages=102-106&rft.issn=0250-832X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600331&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E79998386%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79998386&rft_id=info:pmid/9656875&rfr_iscdi=true |