The new Isolite 3 system from Zyris allows clinicians to quickly and easily implement a standard protocol for consistent outcomes in procedures that require isolation and moisture control.
Building upon the popularity of earlier versions, Isolite 3 introduces the first-ever amber light integrated into a dental isolation system. This cure-safe lighting option prevents the polymerization of light-cured, resin-based composites, while providing optimal illumination of the oral cavity.
Whether choosing the new, cure-safe amber light or traditional white light, clinicians can select from three intensity levels to provide ideal intraoral illumination.
The new hose design integrates the control head with the evacuation line into a robust and nondetachable unit that is easy to clean and disinfect. Engineered to improve office efficiency, the system includes a cleaning tip attachment for direct-to-canister or chair cleaning systems.
The Isolite 3 also incorporates Liquidmetal into the product design, making the device lighter, yet stronger than previous versions.
Also new is the integration of light management technology that utilizes multiple sensors to dynamically manage thermal loads and light output to prevent over heating.
For operatories with limited high-volume evacuation ports, the Isolite 3 includes a new intelligent Power Vacuum Base that serves as an adjustable Y-adapter.
The Power Vacuum Base can be set to provide suction for the Isolite 3, the Isolite 3 and an accessory, an accessory only, or it can be turned off for cleaning and sterilization.
Optionally, the Power Vacuum Base can be connected directly to the power supply in modern dental chairs.
Like the Isolite 2 before it, Isolite 3 uses the award-winning mouthpieces that integrate a dual-channel suction, protection for the cheek, tongue and airway, and an integrated bite-block for patient safety and comfort.
Zyris (formerly Isolite Systems) was founded to create positive dental experiences for patients and providers. Thanks to innovative solutions, such as the new Isolite 3 system, dentists, dental assistants and dental hygienists can achieve more predictable outcomes — while improving clinical efficiency, patient safety and comfort — in procedures requiring moisture control and isolation.
Written for dentists working in general, family and cosmetic dentistry, as well as specialists from all disciplines, Decisions in Dentistry is a peer-reviewed journal designed to support the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in multidisciplinary care. Reflecting the latest thinking from nationally ranked educators, researchers and clinicians, the journal presents evidence-based, clinically relevant articles in an inviting and easy-to-understand format. Unique in its approach, Decisions in Dentistry makes the complex simple and offers unbiased information and continuing education that dentists can use to improve their technique and provide the highest level of care.
When designing and refining a web site, a roadmap can save a lot of effort. Part of that roadmap is envisaging how your user actually sees the site. It makes sense for that to guide how you develop and test the site. An example of a persona that does this.
Envisaging your web site user involves picturing both what he thinks and what he actually sees. These things can be incorporated into a persona. (Here called Stuart.) Looking through Stuart's eye's helps clarify your thinking and saves time, when designing a web site. A lot of what he sees is determined by his operating system and browsers.
Two aspects of how Stuart is connected to the web are his operating system and browsers. These are illustrated, below, with graphed data over about a decade. Such graphs can be used to check how realistic Stuart is. They also illustrate how the situation changes over time.
Stuart currently use the XP versions of the Windows operating system (OS). He adopted it about half way through it's rise in popularity (mid 2002). (He is reluctant to spend the time converting to a new operating system version and may delay the next change-over, till a similar point.) He keeps the operating system up to date with the latest service packs and patches.
Development and testing should be undertaken on a Windows computer to ensure the site is compatible. In other words the test panel should have access to such computers.
The exact Windows version of the computers is not critical provided that equivalent browser versions are available. (Keeping the system up to date is not crucial for the team, though it is advisable.)
When a new OS version is released, there is time to get ready for it. This while it is still gaining popularity. Timing can be planned from graphs like these.
Stuart uses both Internet Explorer (IE) and a Firefox (Gecko) browser. In both cases he has the most recent version of the browser. (It is possible that his Gecko browser is a few months old.) He uses IE more often.
Two browsers, with a single version of each is relatively easy to test. The test panel should ideally include people with both browsers. In times of transition, when one browser version is replacing another, Stuart will likely use both versions. That means both versions should be tested. Installation, of two versions, is easy for Netscape / Gecko browsers like Firefox. For IE it is not as easy, although it is possible. For that reason testing on dual IE versions might only be undertaken by some panel members.
Historically browsers change more rapidly than operating systems. The exception on the graph is where the Netscape browser had a bad version.
Even though the code base changed, Netscape and Gecko browsers are considered to be from a single family.
This simple browser pattern for Stuart (2 browsers), appears to accommodate over 85% of site visitors so is a fairly safe bet.
This dictates what sizes you should use during testing. How that happens depends on your situation. One approach is for the test panel to use their normal machines. You can capture those details during testing, inspect the machines or only keep notes where it's easy. In that case (panel uses what it wants to), there should be tests across the different screen sizes on at least one machine.
Stuart has both JavaScript and Cookies switched on always. (He also has a cookie viewer and knows how to switch on JavaScript debugging, though he doesn't do these things very often.)
For a simple site you may be able to avoid using JavaScript and Cookies. In my experience however, features that require them are always on the table. That makes it wise to plan for them up front.
There is debate about whether users have these switched on. Surveys suggest that JavaScript is usually on for more than 90% of visitors. Cookies are probably on for over 95% of visitors. Considering how unpleasant the web is without them, I think it reasonable for Stuart to always use them.
You can plan for a panic where either or both are switched off. Consider what it will do for your site. You can (and should) minimise the impact by design, where that's sensible. Where you depend on these features, there's no point in worrying about it.
Stuart uses Windows XP and occasionally Windows 2003. When a new operating system is released he will generally use it within about 18 months. He mostly uses Internet Explorer. Sometimes he uses Firefox. For both browsers he quickly adopts the latest version (and patches).
He generally uses a screen resolution of 1280x1024, with an occasional use of 800x600. In both cases he uses a colour depth of 24 bits or greater. JavaScript is always turned on, as are cookies.
This profile is deliberately simple. Less browsers, less operating systems means less work. The fact that Stuart applies software updates quickly, helps save time and effort in the development team. The test panel should see the web site in one of the ways he does.
Even though the persona is simple it is based on real life data. This same data may give an indication of your Internet population, it may not. If you know your audience is specialised, like Firefox enthusiasts, or Mac using graphic artists your persona will be different from the Stuart described here.
Stuart is based on aggregating all visitors to a site. This won't be right in every case. If you have doubts, it's worth checking the profile of your real customers, and contrasting that with all site visitors. There could be a significant difference. You probably want your persona to reflect the customers more than it does the all comers profile. (While this is a real possibility, but I have not encountered it.)
The testing that derives from this persona is not the whole story. Irrespective of Stuart's persona, the web design is intended to work well for all users. There are techniques to ensure that. The persona defines the main thrust of development effort. The technical team will run deeper checks, even if the test panel does not.
In the past minor browser version changes have removed features. If you were dependent on such features you could be in trouble! While I see no need to run exhaustive checks for minor version changes, major versions deserve to be re-checked. Before the new browser version is heavily used there is an opportunity to make sure the site works well and adapt if needed. (Don't blame the web developers if the browser changes!!) Even if there is a major problem, there is time to react. For a time few people are using the browser, put another way Stuart only uses the new version for one visit in a hundred. If you react while usage is low little damage will be done.
My impression is that there is less good hard information about these details than there was six or seven years ago. Here are some sources that might be as useful to you, as they have been to me.
The University of Illinois, publishes records of browser statistics going back to 1996. Very useful to get a cross section of web history.
The W3Schools publish data about a variety of issues like browsers, operating systems and screen resolution.