docRotograph EVO competition
download 
Report Transcription
Rotograph EVO competition
Competition Competition benchmark How do we win against....? • Vatech • Sirona • Gendex • Kodak - Carestream • Soredex • Planmeca • Morita • Instrumentarium All data in this document is for information purpose only and do not constitute commitment of any kind about Villa’s or other manufacturer’s performance. Competitive data are current as of September 2008 are are taken or derived from official literature. As product data change over time, no assurance is given about real performance of any product described. Competition summary Villa Gendex Pan only 1) Pan + Ceph single sensor Pan + Ceph dual sensor Rotograph Evo 2) Rotograph Plus D Rotograph Evo Strato 2000 D Rotograph Evo Orthoralix 8500 Orthoralix 9200 Instrumentarium Sirona Soredex OP 200 OP 200 Ortophos XG 3 Ortophos XG 5 Ortophos XG plus Ortophos XG 5 Ortophos XG plus Novus Cranex D Cranex D Kodak Planmeca 8000 Pro One Morita Veraview IC 5 Vatech P&P XC Pro Line ProMax XC Pro Line ProMax Pax 400C Pax 400C Notes 1. This category includes products that don’t have the possibility to install a ceph arm. All products with ceph are also available as pan units “ready for ceph”. 2. Rotograph Evo is also available as a pan-only unit. Nevertheless, the structure of the system is still designed for Pan+Ceph, making it slightly more costly than some other competing products Rotograph EVO vs. Vatech Pax 400 EVO vs. Vatech Pax 400 – imaging programs EVO Pax 400 10 panoramic projections: 8 panoramic projections: • • • • • • • • • • Standard panoramic Child panoramic Maxillary Sinus TMJ – open mouth TMJ – closed mouth Frontal dentition Left half-panoramic Right half-panoramic Impr. orthogonality pan Low dose panoramic 4 Ceph std res + 4 hi res • • • • AP-PA Latero-Lateral Carpus SMV (taken as AP)@ • • • • • • • • Standard panoramic Child panoramic Maxillary Sinus TMJ – open mouth TMJ – closed mouth Frontal dentition Left half-panoramic Right half-panoramic 4 Ceph std res + 4 hi res • • • • AP-PA Latero-Lateral Carpus SMV (taken as AP)@ EVO vs. Vatech Pax 400 – patient positioning • Less positioning time required by Evo ? Necessity to regulate 3 laser references on Vatech ! Only 2 lasers present on Evo • Higher patient visibility on Evo ! Presence of the adjustable mirror on Evo ? On the Vatech unit the convex mirror increases the difficulty of patient positioning (deformed view)@ EVO vs. Vatech Pax 400 – ergonomic • Simplified keyboard directly mounted on Evo ? Only virtual keyboard on the Vatech ! Possibility on the Evo to position the patient and set parameters at the same time • Evo has Direct storage on USB memory sticks ! Rotograph Evo can work even if not connected to a computer!! EVO vs. Vatech Pax 400 – Design • Fresh and new industrial design of Evo ! Telescopic column present on Evo ! Glossy painting of all components • Villa expertise in engineering of X-ray devices ? Vatech founded in 1992 – active only in dental ! Villa founded in 1958. Active in both medical and dental Rotograph EVO vs. Vatech Pax 500 Evo vs. Vatech Pax 500 – imaging programs EVO Pax 500 10 panoramic projections: 8 panoramic projections: • • • • • • • • • • Standard panoramic Child panoramic Maxillary Sinus TMJ – open mouth TMJ – closed mouth Frontal dentition Left half-panoramic Right half-panoramic Impr. orthogonality pan Low dose panoramic 4 Ceph std res + 4 hi res • • • • AP-PA Latero-Lateral Carpus SMV (taken as AP)@ • • • • • • • • Standard panoramic Child panoramic Maxillary Sinus TMJ – open mouth TMJ – closed mouth Frontal dentition Left half-panoramic Right half-panoramic 4 Ceph programs ONLY std res • • • • AP-PA Latero-Lateral Carpus SMV (taken as AP)@ EVO vs. Vatech Pax 500 • Pax 500 offering scanning Ceph (Versa) or 1-shot Ceph (OS) − But ~2 seconds for 1 shot Ceph and ~13 seconds (!!) for scanning Ceph − Evo takes only 4,5 seconds with hi-speed scanning Ceph • Pax 500 offering localized 3D reconstruction (ECT) − But field of view (FOV) limited to 4x3 cm − Necessity to go for more expensive Picasso units to get area of exposure REALLY useful for implants EVO vs. Vatech Pax 500 - patient positioning • Straightforward procedure with Evo • Presence of the camera on the 500 generates confusion on the user (Look at camera? Look at patient? Look at mirror?)@ • Once the positioning phase is concluded, 3-point headrest keeps patient in place on the Evo, while only thin wands are present on Pax 500 EVO vs. Vatech Pax 500 • Less positioning time required by Evo ? Necessity to regulate 3 laser references on Vatech ! Only 2 lasers present on the Evo • Evo has Direct storage on USB memory sticks ! Rotograph Evo can work even if not connected to a computer!! Rotograph EVO vs. Vatech P&P EVO vs. Vatech P&P • Limited imaging capabilities on P&P • Functionalities limited to standard panoramic views, TMJ and Sinus • No Ceph version • Poor patient positioning • Visibility of patient limited by big carriage and fixed mirror • Poor patient stability: no headrest • Only flexible wands keeping patient in place Rotograph EVO vs. Sirona Orthophos XG5 EVO vs. Sirona Orthophos XG5 - Overview • Fixed KV – ma combination on XG units • Limited customization capabilities • Complex mechanism for Digital Sensor Module • 2 hands needed for coupling and releasing • Absence of telescopic column • Limited installation in case of low ceilings • Mandatory connection with PC for unit functionality No onboard storage capability Rotograph EVO vs. Sirona Orthophos XG3 EVO vs. Sirona Orthophos XG3 - Overview • Fixed KV – ma combination on XG units • Limited customization capabilities • No Ceph possibility (must upgrade to XG5) • No telescopic column • Limited installation in case of low ceilings • Mandatory connection with PC for unit functionality No onboard storage capability Rotograph EVO vs. Gendex 9200 EVO vs. Gendex Orthoralix 9200 ! Fully-motorized primary collimation on Evo • Selection of the right collimator is automatically done according to the selected projection • Manual collimator on Orthoralix ? Only single sensor Ceph • Huge limitation for practices with heavy Pan / Ceph workflows EVO vs. Gendex 9200 - patient positioning • Less positioning time required by Evo • Necessity to regulate 3 laser references on 9200 • Just 2 lasers present on Evo. • Higher patient visibility on Evo • Adjustable mirror on Evo • Small mirror without regulation on 9200 EVO vs. Gendex 9200 - design & engineering • 9200 is only a minor cosmetic evolution of the Orthoralix SD • Squared design typical of the mid 80s • Absence of telescopic column • No glossy painting and poorer finishing ? 9200 is engineered to work only if connected with a PC ! Evo features a USB access for external drive (ex. USB stick)@ ! Rotograph Evo can work even if not connected to a computer!! Rotograph EVO vs. Gendex 8500 EVO vs. Gendex 8500 ? Minimum imaging capabilities on 8500 • Programs limited to standard panoramic and child, no TMJ, no Sinus ? No Ceph version on 8500 ? Bad ergonomics on 8500 • Multi-Frankfurt laser generates confusion • Presence of 2 separate keyboards not allowing a straightforward workflow ? Poor patient positioning of 8500 • Visibility of patient limited by big carriage and small mirror • Poor patient stability: no headrest, only flexible wands keeping patient in place EVO vs. Gendex 8500 - design “Low-cost” cosmetic impact of 8500 • Use of grainy painting, not glossy • Poor assembly of components (mirror “glued” on column, upper cover. Multi-Frankfurt laser generates confusion in the user • Sensor engineered for 9200, thus not fitting rest of the design Rotograph EVO vs. Kodak 8000 EVO vs. Kodak 8000 - imaging and interface •Poorer imaging capabilities on 8000 ? Functionalities limited by the single-motor movement ! Evo's multi-motorized rotation allows optimized X-ray trajectory ? Only 5 panoramic projections available on 8000 •8000 is only PC controlled Absence of on-board keyboard is not allowing simultaneous setting of patient and commands •Requires a PCI acquisition card in the PC Not possible to use a laptop. Poor network connectivity EVO vs. Kodak 8000 - patient positioning • Patient movement required during positioning • Patient positioning limited by the singlemotor: patient has to be adapted to the machine by entering into image layer • Evo's setting according to biting attitude automatically adapts the focal layer • Limited visibility of laser references • On Kodak 8000, limited visibility of 3rd reference coming from the top of the carriage • On Evo, only 2 lasers are needed for perfect positioning EVO vs. Kodak 8000C – Single shot Ceph Advantages: • Reduced exposure times (although still requires up to 3.2 seconds) Small Detector Scintillator screen Light X-ray Disadvantages: • High patient dose (inefficient technology based on scintillator screen, optics and small sensor derived from intraoral) • Big Dimensions (operating space 280cm) • Poor image resolution • Limited image area (18x24cm) • Critical calibration Rotograph EVO vs. Soredex Novus EVO vs. Soredex Novus - Overview • Poor number of projections: - Pan, Child TMJ - NO Sinus • No ceph version • Absence of telescopic column • Heavier design • Limited installation in case of low ceiling Rotograph EVO vs. Soredex Cranex D EVO vs. Soredex Cranex D - Overview • No Sinus projection • Fixed mA value • Absence of telescopic colum Rotograph EVO vs. Planmeca ProOne EVO vs. Planmeca ProOne - Overview • Poor patient stability tools: - Only two flexible temporal resting bars - Rotograph Evo has a three point head support • No ceph version • Absence of telescopic column • Heavier design • Limited installation in case of low ceiling Rotograph EVO vs. Planmeca XC proline EVO vs. Planmeca XC proline - Overview • Poor patient stability tools: - Only two flexible temporal resting bars - Rotograph Evo has a three point head support • Manual regulation of layer through bite block forward and backward movement • Absence of telescopic column • Heavier design • Limited installation in case of low ceiling Rotograph EVO vs. Morita IC5 EVO vs. Morita IC5 - Overview • Manual regulation of layer through bite block forward and backward movement • No ceph version • Absence of telescopic column • Patient positioning on the correct layer is difficult because the mirror is not rotating Rotograph EVO vs. Instrumentarium OP200 EVO vs. Instrumentarium OP200 - Overview • Absence of telescopic column • Heavier design • Limited installation in case of low ceiling • Weight • OP 200: 175 kg (210 kg with ceph arm) • Rotograph Evo: 147 kg (167 kg with ceph arm) • Ceph arm length • OP 200: 2000 mm • Rotograph EVO: 1840 mm
