Purpose: The bisecting angle technique (BAT) encounters difficulties in positioning the X-ray cone and aligningthe central beam with the tooth. To address this, a rectangular laser featuring a pointed light was integrated into theintraoral X-ray cone. This study evaluated its effectiveness in improving radiograph quality and minimizing errors. Materials and Methods: Fifty fifth-year Bachelor of Dental Surgery students were divided into 3 groups. Group1 (n = 16) used the paralleling technique, group 2 (n = 17) employed the conventional BAT, and group 3 (n = 17) utilized the laser-assisted BAT on mannequins. Two independent oral radiologists assessed the quality of the radiographs, categorizing the images as either diagnostically acceptable or not acceptable. Inter-group comparisons of quality and error rates were conducted using the chi-square test (significance level: P<0.05). Results: The paralleling technique group produced 77.5% diagnostically acceptable radiographs and 22.5% that were not diagnostically acceptable. These percentages were 65.3% and 34.7%, respectively, in the conventional BAT group and 75.3% and 24.7%, respectively, in the laser-assisted BAT group, showing results similar to the paralleling technique group. The quality of radiographs differed significantly among the groups (P<0.05). The percentage of error-free radiographs was 38.1% in the paralleling technique group, 20.6% in the conventional BAT group, and 40.0% in the laser-assisted BAT group, with these differences being statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The device produced higher acceptability and fewer radiographic errors than the conventional BATtechnique, suggesting accurate adjustment of the X-ray cone and central beam to the desired teeth.

Purpose: The bisecting angle technique (BAT) encounters difficulties in positioning the X-ray cone and aligningthe central beam with the tooth. To address this, a rectangular laser featuring a pointed light was integrated into theintraoral X-ray cone. This study evaluated its effectiveness in improving radiograph quality and minimizing errors. Materials and Methods: Fifty fifth-year Bachelor of Dental Surgery students were divided into 3 groups. Group1 (n = 16) used the paralleling technique, group 2 (n = 17) employed the conventional BAT, and group 3 (n = 17) utilized the laser-assisted BAT on mannequins. Two independent oral radiologists assessed the quality of the radiographs, categorizing the images as either diagnostically acceptable or not acceptable. Inter-group comparisons of quality and error rates were conducted using the chi-square test (significance level: P<0.05). Results: The paralleling technique group produced 77.5% diagnostically acceptable radiographs and 22.5% that were not diagnostically acceptable. These percentages were 65.3% and 34.7%, respectively, in the conventional BAT group and 75.3% and 24.7%, respectively, in the laser-assisted BAT group, showing results similar to the paralleling technique group. The quality of radiographs differed significantly among the groups (P<0.05). The percentage of error-free radiographs was 38.1% in the paralleling technique group, 20.6% in the conventional BAT group, and 40.0% in the laser-assisted BAT group, with these differences being statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The device produced higher acceptability and fewer radiographic errors than the conventional BATtechnique, suggesting accurate adjustment of the X-ray cone and central beam to the desired teeth.

Purpose: The bisecting angle technique (BAT) encounters difficulties in positioning the X-ray cone and aligningthe central beam with the tooth. To address this, a rectangular laser featuring a pointed light was integrated into theintraoral X-ray cone. This study evaluated its effectiveness in improving radiograph quality and minimizing errors. Materials and Methods: Fifty fifth-year Bachelor of Dental Surgery students were divided into 3 groups. Group1 (n = 16) used the paralleling technique, group 2 (n = 17) employed the conventional BAT, and group 3 (n = 17) utilized the laser-assisted BAT on mannequins. Two independent oral radiologists assessed the quality of the radiographs, categorizing the images as either diagnostically acceptable or not acceptable. Inter-group comparisons of quality and error rates were conducted using the chi-square test (significance level: P<0.05). Results: The paralleling technique group produced 77.5% diagnostically acceptable radiographs and 22.5% that were not diagnostically acceptable. These percentages were 65.3% and 34.7%, respectively, in the conventional BAT group and 75.3% and 24.7%, respectively, in the laser-assisted BAT group, showing results similar to the paralleling technique group. The quality of radiographs differed significantly among the groups (P<0.05). The percentage of error-free radiographs was 38.1% in the paralleling technique group, 20.6% in the conventional BAT group, and 40.0% in the laser-assisted BAT group, with these differences being statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The device produced higher acceptability and fewer radiographic errors than the conventional BATtechnique, suggesting accurate adjustment of the X-ray cone and central beam to the desired teeth.