» Articles » PMID: 38191969

Exposure and Protection Protocols of Dentomaxillofacial Imaging Applied by Paediatric Dentists in Europe

Overview
Journal Oral Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2024 Jan 9
PMID 38191969
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

References
1.
Tugnait A, Clerehugh V, Hirschmann P . Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental practice: a survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales. J Dent. 2003; 31(3):197-203. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00013-7. View

2.
Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W . Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35(4):219-26. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323. View

3.
Rout J, Brown J . Ionizing radiation regulations and the dental practitioner: 1. The nature of ionizing radiation and its use in dentistry. Dent Update. 2012; 39(3):191-2, 195-8, 201-3. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2012.39.3.191. View

4.
Kuhnisch J, Anttonen V, Duggal M, Spyridonos M, Rajasekharan S, Sobczak M . Best clinical practice guidance for prescribing dental radiographs in children and adolescents: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019; 21(4):375-386. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-019-00493-x. View

5.
Ihle I, Neibling E, Albrecht K, Treston H, Sholapurkar A . Investigation of radiation-protection knowledge, attitudes, and practices of North Queensland dentists. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018; 10(1):e12374. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12374. View