Platin E, Nesbit S P, Ludlow J B
Department of Diagnostic Sciences and General Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill 27599-7450, USA.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1999 Feb;130(2):211-8. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0170.
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.
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.
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.
Ektaspeed Plus film compared favorably with Ultra-speed film under all conditions.
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.
尽管爱克发速(伊士曼柯达公司)口腔内胶片对患者具有减少X射线辐射剂量的优势,但牙科专业人员仍不愿接受它。一个原因可能是与超高速胶片(伊士曼柯达公司)相比,爱克发速胶片对长期储存的已知敏感性。1995年,柯达用爱克发速加强型胶片取代了爱克发速胶片,声称它比爱克发速胶片具有更好的分辨率和更高的稳定性,以及相同的曝光辐射。作者比较了超高速和爱克发速加强型胶片对储存条件和时间的反应。
作者将10盒新生产的超高速和爱克发速加强型胶片储存在5个地点。在26个月的时间里,他们进行了23次图像试验,在受控条件下用铝阶梯楔形物对每张胶片进行曝光。冲洗胶片后,他们测量密度以计算胶片的片基+灰雾度和对比度指数值。
作者发现胶片类型(P = .0002)、冲洗状态(P < .0001)、储存地点(P < .0001)和储存月份(P < .0001)存在显著差异。他们还发现了胶片类型与储存地点之间的相互作用(P < .0001),但未发现胶片类型与冲洗之间的相互作用(P = .3271)。回归线表明,超高速胶片的片基+灰雾度水平的光学密度上升比爱克发速加强型胶片更陡峭。超高速胶片的对比度随储存月份增加而降低存在显著相关性(P < .0001)。在研究过程中,使用用过的显影液导致片基+灰雾度水平略有增加。
在所有条件下,爱克发速加强型胶片与超高速胶片相比表现良好。
作者建议在口腔内成像中使用爱克发速加强型胶片,因为其性能与超高速胶片相当,而对患者的X射线辐射剂量仅为超高速胶片的一半。临床医生在改用新胶片之前必须确保使用正确的安全灯和冲洗液。