Methods: Senior dental hygiene students (n=29) exposed up to three patient intraoral full mouth series (FMX). A randomized block study design was used to assign students to one of six study groups. Each group was assigned an alternating sequence of device use. After the procedure, the subject completed a six-item survey regarding the use of the device. At study completion, a post-study five-item survey was administered. Examiner reliability was 0.87 (intra-class correlation). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The primary outcome was the percentage of any error per FMX.
Results: Sixty FMXs were exposed by 25 subjects (86% of the senior students). The mean (SD) percent of any technique error for the standard, modified, and standard/shield devices was 18.4(8.1), 17.5(7.2), and 15.4(6.6) respectively (p=0.43). There was no statistically significant difference among the three systems used. Error types varied per device with a lower mean percent of conecut errors, 15.8(8.4), seen with the standard/shield compared to the highest mean percent, 25.1(4.0), with the modified device. The modified device had the lowest average percent of vertical errors 4.2(4.2) compared to the highest using the standard/shield 8.7(6.5). The mean percent of horizontal errors ranged from 5.9(4.4) with the standard/shield to the highest 11.2(5.2) with the modified device. The average percent of packet placement errors was similar among all devices. From the post study survey, 50% of subjects who completed radiographs with all three study devices preferred the modified device.
Conclusions: No statistical difference occurred in the average percent of any technique error among the three devices. Although fewer horizontal and cone centering errors occurred when using the XCP®/JADRAD™, students reported a preference for the XCP-ORA™.
Keywords: Clinical trials, Radiology and Receptor-positioning System