A comparison of Kodak Ultraspeed and Ektaspeed plus dental X-ray films for the detection of dental caries.

BACKGROUND

Using the fastest dental X-ray film available is an easy way of reducing exposure to ionizing radiation. However, the diagnostic ability of fast films for the detection of proximal surface caries must be demonstrated before these films will become universally accepted.

METHODS

Extracted premolar and molar teeth were arranged to simulate a bitewing examination and radiographed using Ultraspeed and Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray films. Three different exposure times were used for each film type. Six general dentists were used to determine the presence and depth of the decay in the proximal surfaces of the teeth radiographed. The actual extent of the decay in the teeth was determined by sectioning the teeth and examining them under a microscope.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two films for the mean correct diagnosis. However, there was a significant difference between the means for the three exposure times used for Ultraspeed film. The practitioners used were not consistent in their ability to make a correct diagnosis, or for the film for which they got the highest correct diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray film is just as reliable as Ultraspeed dental X-ray film for the detection of proximal surface decay. The effect of underexposure was significant for Ultraspeed, but not for Ektaspeed Plus. Patient exposure can be reduced significantly with no loss of diagnostic ability by changing from Ultraspeed X-ray film to Ektaspeed Plus X-ray film.