Abstract
Objectives We tested the hypothesis that two different light sources, an alternating current fluorescent viewbox and a direct current halogen viewbox, do not differ with respect to their ability to illuminate reproducibly a radiograph during image capture. Study design Two radiographs were taken: one with four hydroxyapatite chips mounted against a dry mandible and onewithout the chips. They were digitally subtracted with a video-based imaging system. The procedure was repeated at different times. Results A statistically significant difference among optical density measurements was found when the alternating currentfluorescent viewbox ( p<0.001) was used and was related to light intensity variation. Such effect was not observed with the direct current halogen viewbox ( p=0.873). Conclusions Study design efficiency was increased by 212% with the use of the direct current halogen viewbox so that todetect a specified treatment effect with a given level of statistical confidence, the sample size has to be 2.12 times greater if the alternating current fluorescent viewbox is used.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
