便携式 X 射线设备（Nomad Pro 2）与壁装式设备在口腔内放射摄影中的瞄准精度比较。
Precision of aiming with a portable X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2) compared to a wall-mounted device in intraoral radiography.
机构信息
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan , Amsterdam , The Netherlands.
出版信息
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019 Jul;48(5):20180221. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20180221. Epub 2019 May 13.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
20 operators obtained intraoral radiographs of four regions (bitewing, upper molar, lower molar and upper anterior) in five mannequins, using HH and WM devices. Beam-aiming devices were fitted with metal cross-wires to project on image sensors. Deviation from ideal perpendicular incidence of beam was calculated, based on positions of cross-wires relative to gold-standard positions ( average of 10-fold precise aiming by authors via WM system). Analytic models relied on Wilcoxon signed-rank test and mixed model analyses.
RESULTS
Mean deviations from perfect aim were 2.88˚ (± 1.80˚) for WM and 3.06˚ (± 1.90˚) for HH methods. The difference among all operators (HH WM) was 0.17˚ (± 2.48˚), which was not significant. Seven operators showed better aim by HH device (13 by WM system); and in one instance, this difference was significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Aiming precision proved similar for HH and WM methods of intraoral radiography, although individual operators may perform better using one of these modalities. Aim is not an expected limiting factor for image quality in HH ( WM) diagnostics.
方法和材料
20 名操作人员在 5 个人体模型的四个区域（咬合片、上颌磨牙、下颌磨牙和上颌前牙）中使用 HH 和 WM 设备获得口腔内射线照片。束瞄准设备配备了金属十字线，以投射到图像传感器上。根据十字线相对于金标准位置（作者通过 WM 系统进行了 10 次精确瞄准的平均值）的位置，计算出束偏离理想垂直入射的程度。分析模型依赖于 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验和混合模型分析。
结果
对于 WM 方法，完美瞄准的平均偏差为 2.88˚（±1.80˚），对于 HH 方法为 3.06˚（±1.90˚）。所有操作人员（HH WM）之间的差异为 0.17˚（±2.48˚），差异不显著。有 7 名操作人员使用 HH 设备的瞄准精度更高（13 名操作人员使用 WM 系统）；在一种情况下，这种差异具有统计学意义。
结论
尽管个别操作人员可能使用其中一种模式表现更好，但 HH 和 WM 口腔内射线照相方法的瞄准精度证明是相似的。在 HH（WM）诊断中，瞄准精度不是图像质量的预期限制因素。
Zotero 插件