Conflict of InterestsNone of the authors of this paper has a fina

Conflict of InterestsNone of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately find more influence or bias the content of the paper.AcknowledgmentThe authors would like to thank Assoc Professor Eva Hellm��n of the Department of Anatomy and Physiology, Uppsala University for kind donation of the CMT-U27 cell line. This study was supported by the Research Fund of Istanbul University (project no. 459/27122005).
Due to advancements in technology, digital radiography is widely used in dental practice [1]. Several systems have been introduced for intraoral digital radiography, and they can be divided into three groups according to their sensor types [2]: Charge-Coupled Device (CCD), Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS), and Photostimulable Phosphor Plate (PSP) [2].

These digital image receptors are also broadly classified as direct (CCD, CMOS) and indirect (PSP) [3]. In actuality, the PSP system can be referred to as a semidirect imaging system [4].PSP image receptor systems are distinguished from other types by special features of the plate��thin structure and flexibility��and by the absence of an electrical cord [5, 6], qualities that make it easier to place the receptor into the mount [5]. Other advantages of PSP systems include being available in exactly the same size as conventional film and having a wider dynamic range, which produces better quality radiographs compared with CCD and CMOS sensors [7, 8].

The major disadvantages of PSPs are remaining stored energy in the plate before and even after scanning, lower quality due to repeated use, and the need for additional time for handling and scanning [5, 9, 10]. Several studies have been conducted to compare the quality of images captured using PSPs with images captured using conventional radiography or CCD device [3, 11�C16]. Different types of PSP systems have also been evaluated to determine clinical image quality [13, 16�C18]. Studies of clinical and laboratory performance of PSPs have been made in regard to caries detection [13, 16, 19], imaging root canals [19], and identification of endodontic instruments [15, 20]. A few investigators have looked at some remaining doubts regarding PSP systems, such as durability of the plate [21], image quality according to scanning delay [14, 22, 23], use of protective plastic cases [2], and storage conditions [24]. However, to our knowledge, no study has focused Batimastat on the effects on the quality of images acquired using different PSPs enclosed in various protective plastic cases over a series of scanning delay times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>