A practical comparison for operators evaluating full-body beds vs panel systems for their practice.
| Factor | Full-Body Bed | Panel System |
|---|---|---|
| Wavelengths | 4 (630, 660, 850, 940nm) | Typically 2 (660, 850nm) |
| Intensity Control | Independent per wavelength | On/Off only |
| Real-Time Sensors | Yes — every panel | No |
| Coverage | Full body, uniform | Partial, requires repositioning |
| Session time | 15 minutes | 20–40+ minutes |
| Staff involvement | Minimal (self-serve) | Moderate (positioning) |
| Throughput | High (3 sessions/hr) | Lower (1–2 sessions/hr) |
| Client experience | Comfortable, consistent | Variable, less comfortable |
| Space required | Dedicated room (~5x9) | Flexible placement |
| Investment | Higher upfront | Lower upfront |
| Revenue per hour | Higher (more sessions) | Lower (fewer sessions) |
For most clinic operators, the decision comes down to throughput and staff time. A full-body bed runs 3 sessions per hour with minimal staff involvement — 15-minute sessions plus 5 minutes for changeover. Panel systems typically manage 1 to 2 sessions per hour and require more hands-on positioning.
The higher upfront investment of a bed is typically offset by higher revenue per hour and lower labor cost per session. Use our ROI calculator to model both scenarios with your specific assumptions.
Panels can work for low-volume, targeted applications where full-body coverage isn't needed. For high-throughput clinic environments, full-body beds generally offer better throughput and client experience.
Some operators start with the Summit Pads for focused-area sessions and add a Pinnacle Bed later as demand grows. Dahlia can help you plan a phased approach.
Panel arrays attempt to replicate full-body coverage by combining multiple panels. This increases cost, complexity, and staff time compared to a purpose-built bed system.
Content is for general information only and is not medical advice. Results vary. Consult qualified professionals regarding health decisions.