Conclusions
A HH device delivers a comparable image quality to a WM device. In addition, there seem to be short learning curves with regard to image acquisition when using a handheld device, which is further minimised by the previous training of the operating personnel. HH dental X-ray devices, such as the Nomad Pro 2 are a promising adjunct for dental radiology in cases where WM units are of limited practicability.
Methods
Anatomical, radiological and biological dental X-ray image quality parameters of a handheld dental X-ray device (Nomad Pro 2, Kavo Kerr, Biberach, Germany) were compared to a standard wall-mounted dental X-ray unit (Heliodent Plus, Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany) using a maxillofacial phantom. In addition, the effect of different operators (dentists, dental students, dental assistants) on the dental X-ray image quality was measured.
Results
HH and WM devices showed comparable image quality for anterior teeth, premolars, molars and bitewing images. During the two-month investigational period, the radiation exposure level for the operator of the Nomad Pro 2 was 0.1 mSv for 203 images. Dentists as the highest trained personnel enrolled in the study achieved better image quality with the Nomad Pro 2 as compared to dental students and dental assistants, especially in the molar region. Conclusions: A HH device delivers a comparable image quality to a WM device. In addition, there seem to be short learning curves with regard to image acquisition when using a handheld device, which is further minimised by the previous training of the operating personnel. HH dental X-ray devices, such as the Nomad Pro 2 are a promising adjunct for dental radiology in cases where WM units are of limited practicability.