Intraoral Radiology in General Dental Practices – A Comparison of Digital and Film-Based X-Ray Systems with Regard to Radiation Protection and Dose Reduction

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the distribution and application of digital intraoral radiographic techniques within general dental practices and to compare these with film-based systems in terms of patient dose reduction. Materials and Methods: 1100 questionnaires were handed out to general dental practitioners. Data was analyzed with respect to the type of system by using descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests, i.?e. Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and chi-square test (SPSS 20). Results: 64?% of the questioned dentists still use film-based radiology, 23?% utilize storage phosphor plate (SPP) systems and 13?% use a charge-coupled device (CCD). A strong correlation between the number of dentists working in a practice and the use of digital dental imaging was observed. Almost 3/4 of the film users work with E- or F-speed film. 45?% of them refuse to change to a digital system. The use of lead aprons was popular, while only a minority preferred thyroid shields and rectangular collimators. A fourfold reduction of exposure time from D-speed film to CCD systems was observed. Due to detector size and positioning errors, users of CCD systems take significantly more single-tooth radiographs in total. Considering the number of radiographs per patient, there is only a slight tendency towards more X-rays with CCD systems. Up to image generation, digital systems seem to be as or even more difficult to handle than film-based systems, while their handling was favored after radiographic exposure. Conclusion: Despite a slight increase of radiographs taken with CCD systems, there is a significant dosage reduction. Corresponding to the decrease in exposure time, the patient dose for SPP systems is reduced to one half compared to film. The main issues in CCD technology are positioning errors and the size of the X-ray detectors which are difficult to eliminate. The usage of radiation protection measures still needs to be improved. Key Points: ??Responsible use of digital intraoral radiology results in a significant dose reduction in everyday practice. ??The ALARA principle is only achieved by strict implementation of dose-reducing methods. ??The efforts to use dose-reducing devices must be increased. Citation Format: ??Anissi HD, Geibel MA. Intraoral Radiology in General Dental Practices ? A Comparison of Digital and Film-Based X-Ray Systems with Regard to Radiation Protection and Dose Reduction. Fortschr R?ntgenstr 2014; 186: 762???767

Implementation of Digital Radiography during Root Canal Treatments in Saudi Endodontic and General Dental Practice

“…Nevertheless, there was agreement among participants of the current study (GDs and endodontists as well as FDR users and non-users) on high-cost being the most important disadvantage of FDR (61.5%). These findings were consistent with those reported in previous studies ( 13 , 19 ). This group of participants, the highest percentage (61%), might be willing to adopt FDR systems should they were able to afford them, or should FDR systems were available in the first instance.…”

“…Unavailability was the main barrier for not using dental-dam and endodontic rotary instruments ( 21 , 22 ). Nevertheless, 45 % of the dentists who were using FBR, in a previous study, clearly object shifting to FDR systems ( 19 ). It could have been better that the current study asked participants whether they will consider using FDR in a future work.…”

“…Again, with greater number of RCts hence more time devoted to endodontics, saving time required for radiographs acquisition is important. Anissi & Geibel found positive, but not significant, correlation between the increased number of patients and the trend towards taking more radiographs ( 19 ).…”

“…While Berkhout et al found that FDR systems users took significantly greater number of radiographs compared to FBR users ( 18 ), Anissi & Geibel found that FBR users took significantly more radiographs than FDR users ( 19 ). Muathe & Eaton could not find a significant link in this regard ( 20 ).…”

Comparison of Efficiency and Image Quality of Photostimulable Phosphor Plate and Charge‐Coupled Device Receptors in Dental Radiography

“…The CCD is more rigid and bulky, with a smaller active surface, but allows for instant image display after radiograph exposure 3, 11 . The percentages of general dental practitioners using PSP or CCD systems in specific countries have been found to vary 1, 3, 12 . That variation may be influenced by factors such as the cost of receptors, years of working experience, size of the dental practice, and sociopolitical impact 4, 12, 13 …”