Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1a:
Universal Collimator Device (DXTTR Manikin)
- Figure 1b:
Enhanced Collimator Device (DXTTR Manikin)
- Figure 2:
Bitewing Bite Blocks, Ring Bars with Color Corresponding Alignment Rings and Enhanced Devices' Magnetic Ring
From left to right: The XCP anterior, posterior and bitewing bite blocks; ring bars with color corresponding alignment rings; enhanced devices' unique magnetic ring (replaces the 3 XCP alignment rings)
- Figure 3:
Displays the Enhanced Device Alignment Ring Containing Embedded Magnets
- Figure 4:
Displays the mean number of errors per full mouth for all technique errors (PP, V, H, and CC) as a function of the collimator device (universal vs. enhanced)
The mean number of errors per FMX was 12.1 for the universal device and 9.7 for the enhanced device. A statistically significant difference was seen when the data were analyzed using the adjusted model (F=4.35, d.f.=1, p=0.048).
- Figure 5:
Mean number and type of technique errors per FMX as a function of error type by device
A similar number of errors occurred by device for each error type except for collimator centering. The mean number of collimator centering errors per full mouth series occurred three times more often with the universal device (universal device=3.6 vs. enhanced device=1.1)
- Figure 6:
Mean number of all errors (major and minor) per FMX between the 2devices
The mean number of diagnostically unacceptable errors per full mouth series was similar between the devices (Universal device=3.2 vs. Enhanced device=2.9). A greater difference was seen in the reported mean number of minor errors per full mouth between the two devices (Universal device=8.9 vs. Enhanced device=6.8). Minor collimator centering errors occurred three times more often with the Universal device (Universal device=3.5 vs. Enhanced device=1.1).
- Figure 7:
Mean number of all errors (PP, VA, HA, CC) by device as a function of projection location
There was a statistically significant difference in the average number of errors per FMX when comparing posterior to anterior locations and posterior to bitewing locations (p<0.0001). There was not a significant difference when comparing anterior to bitewing locations (p>0.38).
- Figure 8:
Average time required to complete a FMX by device
On average, the FMX exposures were 4 minutes longer using the Universal device compared to the Enhanced device (p=0.0001).
- Figure 9:
Displays the enhanced collimator without alignment ring engaged and therefore no confirmation lights (left) vs. flush magnetic attachment of the alignment right to the device resulting in visual light confirmation (right)
