Vol.3, No.11, 668-671 (2011)
opyright © 2011 SciRes. Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
The comparison of the densitometric stability between
E+ and Insight intra oral films, which were processed
by Champion and Teifsaz solutions*
Maryam Zangouei-Booshehri, Fatemeh Ezoddini-Ardakani, Farideh Zare Karizi#
Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran;
#Corresponding Aut hor: ezoddini@gmail.com, afsan40@yahoo.co.uk
Received 11 July 2011; revised 5 September 2011; accepted 14 October 2011.
Background and objective: Proper patient treat-
ment planning depends on correct diagnosis of
its disease which could be achieved by taking
high quality radiographs. Densitometric stability
and film processing have important effect on
the radiographs quality. The aim of the present
study was to compare the densitometric stabil-
ity of intra oral E+ and Insight film, which were
processed by Champion and Teifsaz solutions.
Materials and methods: A lab trial study was
conducted. Radiographic images were taken of
56 E and Insight through lead step-wedge. Films
were processed by new and in aging Champion
and Teifsaz solutions every four days. After 56
days, the radiographic density of each film was
calculated by Photoshop software. The contrast
of each image was calculated by distracting
maximum and minimum density. The resultant
data were coded in SPSS software and analyzed
by two-way variance analysis. Results: There is
significant difference between the mean of den-
sity of processed films with the two different
chemicals (Champion & Teifsaz) (P-value <
0.0001) that Champion was better than Teifsaz.
However, there is no significant difference be-
tween the density of E+ and Insight films (P-
value = 0.717). Conclusion: Densitometric sta-
bility of new Insight film is as the same as cur-
rently used E+ film and is better preserved with
Champion chemicals than Teifsaz solutions.
Keywords: Radiograp hic Density; Processing
Solutions; Dental Film; E and Insight
Image acquisition with optimal quality and radiation
dosage as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) were
the major objectives of dental diagnostic radiology [1].
As result of dental radiology development, we had a
progressive increase in X-ray film speed and a conse-
quent reduction in radiation hazards. Image quality is
also influenced by the processing method and it has been
observed that depletion of processing chemicals can
have a deleterious effect on film densitometric properties.
X-ray films in medical dentistry had arranged alpha-
betically (A-F type) by their speed and Insight films be-
longed to F group and with suitable processing solution
lead to high quality radiological images. After film ex-
posing by X-ray radiation silver halide transformed into
the metal silver ingredients and made radiographic den-
sitometry due to blocking light transfer from light box.
Processing solution with additive substance were im-
portant factors in image densitometry and quality. Dif-
ferent film quality is related to differences in processing
solution and films which were used by dentists [4].
Most of film producing companies prepared suitable
processing solution and time or temperature for achiev-
ing to the best quality. In some cases due to decline of
processing solution or its expensive prices and use of
processing solution which made in the country, other
solution were used for processing films of specific com-
Present study was designed for comparing the density
stability of Insight and Ekta speed plus radiographic
films manually processed using fresh and depleted Cham-
pion and Teifsaz solution s.
*Sponsor: This research was funded by Shahid Sadoughi University
Medical Sciences Yazd, Iran. This lab trial study was performed for comparison
M. Zangouei-Booshehri et al. / Health 3 (2011) 668-671
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
impacts of Champion (X-ray Tehran-Iran) and Teifsaz
(Teifsaz, Tehran-Iran) processing solutions on densi-
tometric stability of two types of intra oral films includ-
ing Insight and Ekta speed plus films. Study was ap-
proved in ethical research committee of Shahid Sa-
doughi University of medical sciences and health ser-
An eight step Lead step-wedge was prepared .Images
of step wedge was made by intraoral tube (Planmeca
ProLin Helsinki-Finland-Prostyle) with 15 centimeters
distance between tube and film. Radiographic study was
performed according standard radiation which were got
from pilot study with radiation factor KVP = 60 and mA
= 8. Time factor was considered 0.25 Second for insight
and 0.4 S for Ekta speed plus.
All of 56 radiographs, processed. Developing, fixing
and washing times were measured with chronometer and
their temperature was recorded in consecutive 56 days
(14 series) with regular thermometer. Entire of films
were scanned with 8x Scanner (Genus, Thailand) with
300 pixels and transferred to CRT monitor (LG, Korea).
Densitometry of films was measured in Photoshop pro-
gram using info option according to Bashizadeh et al.
method [5]. Eight densitometric measurements were
obtained from each of eight film layer and mean of them
was considered as film density.
Study variables were entered into the SPSS11.5 soft-
ware and Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) was used
for comparing two different film densities. All P-values
less than 0.05 were assumed as significant.
Within the present study, mean of film densitometries
which were processed in Champion and Teifsaz solution
were measured and compared. Mean of density in Ekta
speed plus films which was processed in Champion so-
lution was significantly higher than Teifsaz solution
(55.6 ± 11.1 Vs 27.05 ± 30.4; P < 0.00). Mean of densi-
tometry for Insight films in Champion solution was sig-
nificantly higher than Teifsaz solution (56.5 ± 6.8 Vs
30.4 ± 25.8; P < 0.00).
For covering role of film type as confounding vari-
ables, we compared densitometry of both films with
each of processing solution. In our comparison densi-
tometry of Insight and Ekta speed plus films in Cham-
pion solution had no significant differences (P = 0.90).
As the same as Champion, Insight and Ekta speed plus
films in Teifsaz solution had no significant differences
(P = 0.70). In the other hand film types did not consider
as cofounding variables in above significant differences.
(Table 1)
In assessment of densitometric changes during study
period (56 days) in one of two type of solutions, there
was one sudden d ecline in Teifsaz densitometry (Graph
1 and 2) and lead to decrease in film visual quality and
noted decline was not observe in about Champion solu-
tion and its density was remained in acceptable ranges.
(Figures 1 and 2).
Processing of one film in different solutions can lead
to different contrast and density [6,7]. Syrtoponlos et al.
and Framan et al. in their study concluded that process-
ing solution had main role in quality of dental radiogra-
phies [8-10]. Zamani et al. in their study reported that
AGFA and Primex Films with Champion solution had
suitable density and contrast [11]. As we see in our study
density of both films which were processed with Cham-
pion solution s was higher than Teifsaz solution.
Results of our study showed that image density was
Table 1. Comparing film densitometry of E and F film in both
of processing solutions.
Film Solution P-value
E-T 0.07
F-T 0.67 E-C
F-C 0.09
F-C 0.03
E-T F-T 0.92
F-C F-T 0.04
E-C: E film in Champion processing solution; E-T: E film in Teifsaz
processing solution; F-C: F fi l m in Champion proc essing solution; F- T: film
in Champion Teifsaz proce s s ing solution.
Graph 1. Densitometry changes during study period in both
films and processing solutions.
M. Zangouei-Booshehri et al. / Health 3 (2011) 668-671
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
Graph 2. Film contrast changes during study period in both
films and processing solutions.
Figure 1. Error bar of densitometry changes during study pe-
riod in both films and processing solutions.
not significantly influenced by speed of dental films, as
reported by Farman T.T. et al. [11]. As we know density
of dental films is more related to their optimal exposure
factors rather than image processing time [12]. However
Haiter study in comparing Insight and Ekta speed plus
films for image quality found that Insight films were
more sensitive to processing solutions depletion than
Ekta speed plus [12]. On the other hand Insight films
which were introduced at 2000 and several studies were
performed for assessing its quality in compare with tra-
ditional Ekta speed plus films and reported that insight
film that need to 30% lower radiation than Ekta speed
plus films could replace its clinical usage [10].
Findings of our study confirmed that Champion solu-
tion usage for studies films. Similar with our findings,
Zamani et al. compared Agpha panoramic and Primex
Figure 2. Error bar of film contrast changes during study pe-
riod in both films and processing solutions
films with three processing solutions including Cham-
pion, Teifsaz and Darutasvir and found that Champion
solution was best solution for dental film processing [11].
We did not recommended Teifsaz solution due to low
densitometric stability.
Densitometric stability of new Insight film is as the
same as currently used E+ film and is better preserved
with Champion chemicals than Teifsaz solutions.
[1] Bragger, U., Pasquali, L., Rylander, H. and Carnes, D.,
Kornman, K.S. (1988) Computer-assisted densitometric
image analysis in periodontal radiography. A methodo-
logical study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 15,
27-37. doi :1 0. 1111/ j.1600-051X.1988.tb01551.x
[2] Ortman, L.F., Dunford, R., McHenry, K. and Hausmann,
E. (985) Subtraction radiography and computer assisted
densitometric analyses of standardized radiographs. A
comparison study with 125I absorptiometry. Journal of
Periodontal Research, 120, 644-651.
doi: 10 .1111 /j .1600-0765.1985.tb00849.x
[3] Fourmousis, I., Bragger, U., Burgin, W., Tonetti, M. and
Lang, N.P. (1994) Digital image processing. II. In vitro
quantitative evaluation of soft and hard peri-implant tis-
sue changes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 5, 105-
114. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050207.x
[4] Zubery, Y., Dove, S.B. and Ebersole, J. (1993) An in vitro
study of the characteristics of a computer-aided radio-
graphic evaluation (CARE) system for longitudinal as-
sessment of density changes. Journal of Periodontal Re-
search, 28, 233-240.
doi: 10 .1111 /j .1600-0765.1993.tb02089.x
M. Zangouei-Booshehri et al. / Health 3 (2011) 668-671
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/Openly accessible at
[5] Basizadeh Fakhar, H. and Fatemi Tabar, S. (2004) An
evaluation on accuracy of the indirect digital image den-
sitometry by modified photoshop software. Journal of
Density, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 17, 5-11.
[6] Woo, B.M., Zee, K.Y., Chan, F.H. and Corbet, E.F. (2003)
In vitro calibration and validation of a digital subtraction
radiography system using scanned images. Journal of
Clinical Periodontology, 30, 114-118.
[7] Stuart, C.W. and Michael, J.P. (2004) Oral Radiology
principles and Interpretation. Elsevier Philadephia,
[8] Syriopoulos, K., Velders, X.L., Sanderink, G.C., van
Ginkel, F.C. and van der Stelt, P.F. (1999) Effects of de-
veloper exhaustion on the sensitometric properties of
four dental films. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 28, 80-
88. doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600416
[9] Syriopoulos, K., Velders, X.L., Sanderink, G.C., van
Ginkel, F.C. and van der Stelt, P.F. (1999) Sensitometric
evaluation of four dental X-ray films using five process-
ing solutions. Dentomaxillofacial R a di o lo gy, 28, 73-79.
[10] Farman, T.T. and Farman, A.G. (2000) Evaluation of a
new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing
solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.
Dentomaxillofacial R a d i o l o gy, 29, 41-45.
[11] Zamaninaser, A., Kazemi, K. and Badri, F. (2006) Den-
sitometric evaluation of visual characteristic of two
X-ray panoramic films with three different processing
solutions. Journal of Dentistry (Shiraz University of
Medical Sciences), 7, 131-137.
[12] Bushong, S.C. (2001) Radiologic Science for technolo-
gists. 7th Edition, Mosby, St Louis.