Exposure and protection protocols of dentomaxillofacial imaging applied by paediatric dentists in Europe

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate exposure and protection practices regarding dentomaxillofacial imaging among pediatric dentists in Europe and determine the effect of different clinician specific characteristics on their implementation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study involving an electronic questionnaire addressed to paediatric dentists, participating in a seminar on dental radiology organized by the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. Participants were asked to respond to questions regarding dentomaxillofacial imaging in terms of applied radiation dose, adoption of radiation protection techniques, and different patterns of radiographic studying and exchange between patients and colleagues. Data analysis was performed and distribution of responses was tested using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 151 paediatric dentists, 119 females and 32 males, with a mean chronological age of 42.8 years (s.e. 11.3 years), successfully completed the questionnaire (response rate = 82%). Regardless of the type of radiograph, majority of respondents (68%), reported that they perform the radiographs themselves, while 21% reported that they refer the patients. Half of the respondents (51%), indicated requesting a small (localized) field of view (FOV) when referring for a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with only a small proportion (11%) reporting a large (maxillofacial) FOV. Thyroid collars and optimizing exposure settings were the most commonly reported patient protection measures used. Lastly, paediatric dentists have adopted the latest technological capacities for the study of dental images.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentomaxillofacial imaging protection and exposure protocols used are common among paediatric dentists with none of their specific characteristics having a significant effect.

Awareness and practice of dentomaxillofacial imaging among paediatric dentists: a questionnaire survey of members of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry

OBJECTIVES

Assess knowledge, attitudes and practices of paediatric dentists towards dentomaxillofacial imaging and correlate findings with practitioner and practice-specific characteristics.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to all paediatric dentists who attended a scientific seminar organized by the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) regarding dental radiology. Data regarding available equipment, number, type and reason for performing radiographs, frequency and reasoning for retakes were collected. Data analysis was performed according to practitioner- and practice-specific characteristics and factors directly associated with the type and frequency of radiographs taken, and reason and frequency of repeats were determined. Significant differences were tested using Chi-square and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

More than half of the participants (58%) reported having digital radiographic equipment and almost 1/4 (23%) conventional. A panoramic equipment was available in 39% working places and a CBCT scanner in 41%. Two thirds of the participants reported taking up to 10 intra-oral radiographs per week, mainly for trauma (75%) and caries diagnosis (47%). Extra-oral radiographs were prescribed to monitor development (75%) and for orthodontic evaluation, (63%) with a frequency of less than 5 weekly (45%). Participants reported that they repeat radiographs in a frequency of < 5 per week (70%) mainly due to patient's movement (55%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of paediatric dentists within Europe use digital imaging equipment for both intra- and extra-oral radiographs. Nevertheless, great variation in practices exists and, therefore, continuous education in oral imaging is crucial to maintain high quality standards for the radiographic examination of patients.

EVALUATION OF RADIATION PROTECTION PRINCIPLES OBSERVANCE IN DENTAL RADIOGRAPHY CENTERS (WEST OF IRAN): CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

The aim of this study is to assess the evaluation of radiation protection principles observance in dental radiography centers and hazards. This cross-sectional study was designed to assess level of radiation protection principles in dentistry centers. The present cross-sectional study was conducted by enrolling 103 dentistry centers in Kermanshah province (west of Iran). Our finding illustrates 75.7% of the centers were equipped with an intraoral radiography. Although observance principles of radiation protection for patient at dentistry center were at appropriate level (97.3%), the observance of the protective principles was not adequate for the skilled workers in any center. The most commonly used protective measure was the observance of a distance from patient (97.3%) and the minimum protective measures such as the use of high-speed film (1.4%). According to results in this study, the knowledge and practice of radiation protection are not satisfactory.

Dental Students' Interpretations of Digital Panoramic Radiographs on Completely Edentate Patients

The ability of dental students to interpret digital panoramic radiographs (PANs) of edentulous patients has not been documented. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the ability of second-year (D2) dental students with that of third- and fourth-year (D3-D4) dental students to interpret and identify positional errors in digital PANs obtained from patients with complete edentulism. A total of 169 digital PANs from edentulous patients were assessed by D2 (n=84) and D3-D4 (n=85) dental students at one Canadian dental school. The correctness of the students' interpretations was determined by comparison to a gold standard established by assessments of the same PANs by two experts (a graduate student in prosthodontics and an oral and maxillofacial radiologist). Data collected were from September 1, 2006, when digital radiography was implemented at the university, to December 31, 2012. Nearly all (95%) of the PANs were acceptable diagnostically despite a high proportion (92%) of positional errors detected. A total of 301 positional errors were identified in the sample. The D2 students identified significantly more (p=0.002) positional errors than the D3-D4 students. There was no significant difference (p=0.059) in the distribution of radiographic interpretation errors between the two student groups when compared to the gold standard. Overall, the category of extragnathic findings had the highest number of false negatives (43) reported. In this study, dental students interpreted digital PANs of edentulous patients satisfactorily, but they were more adept at identifying radiographic findings compared to positional errors. Students should be reminded to examine the entire radiograph thoroughly to ensure extragnathic findings are not missed and to recognize and report patient positional errors.

Attitude of the Korean dentists towards radiation safety and selection criteria

Purpose

X-ray exposure should be clinically justified and each exposure should be expected to give patients benefits. Since dental radiographic examination is one of the most frequent radiological procedures, radiation hazard becomes an important public health concern. The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitude of Korean dentists about radiation safety and use of criteria for selecting the frequency and type of radiographic examinations.

Materials and Methods

The study included 267 Korean dentists. Five questions related to radiation safety were asked of each of them. These questions were about factors associated with radiation protection of patients and operators including the use of radiographic selection criteria for intraoral radiographic procedures.

Results

The frequency of prescription of routine radiographic examination (an example is a panoramic radiograph for screening process for occult disease) was 34.1%, while that of selective radiography was 64.0%. Dentists' discussion of radiation risk and benefit with patients was infrequent. More than half of the operators held the image receptor by themselves during intraoral radiographic examinations. Lead apron/thyroid collars for patient protection were used by fewer than 22% of dental offices. Rectangular collimation was utilized by fewer than 15% of dental offices.

Conclusion

The majority of Korean dentists in the study did not practice radiation protection procedures which would be required to minimize exposure to unnecessary radiation for patients and dental professionals. Mandatory continuing professional education in radiation safety and development of Korean radiographic selection criteria is recommended.