Kantor M L, Reiskin A B, Lurie A G
J Am Dent Assoc. 1985 Dec;111(6):967-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1985.0231.
This clinical study compares the diagnostic yield of Kodak Ektaspeed with the diagnostic yield of Kodak Ultraspeed using a split-mouth experimental design and proximal surface carious lesions as the test objects. Assuming that proximal surface carious lesions are distributed randomly in a given patient and in the population at large, then any difference in the diagnostic quality of either of the films should be disclosed as a difference in the frequency and distribution of lesions identified with either of the films. No statistical difference was observed, which suggests that the two films perform equally well for the diagnostic task of detecting proximal surface carious lesions. Considering that there is a 40% to 50% reduction in radiation exposure to the patient when the faster film is used, it appears that Kodak Ektaspeed should be the preferred film for the dental practitioner.
本临床研究采用分口实验设计,并以邻面龋损作为测试对象,比较了柯达Ektaspeed胶片和柯达Ultraspeed胶片的诊断效率。假设邻面龋损在特定患者以及总体人群中随机分布,那么任何一种胶片在诊断质量上的差异都应体现为用这两种胶片所识别出的病损在频率和分布上的差异。未观察到统计学差异,这表明两种胶片在检测邻面龋损的诊断任务中表现同样出色。考虑到使用更快的胶片时患者所接受的辐射剂量会减少40%至50%,柯达Ektaspeed胶片似乎应成为牙科医生的首选胶片。