KNOWLEDGE ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR OF DENTAL SURGEONS REGARDING DENTAL X-RAY EQUIPMENT

Main Article Content

Owais Saghir
Muhammad Ali Akbani
Zara Mehreen
Aisha Kousar
Asad Farooq
Sumbul Shaikh

Keywords

Abstract

Ionizing radiation through dental radiography is an identified and possibly modifiable risk factor. There is a constant need to understand the latest trends in dental radiography and the knowledge of dental practitioners towards it.


Objective: To determine the knowledge attitude and behavior of dental surgeons regarding dental x-rays equipment.


Method: A cross sectional survey was done. Among the available sampling frame of registered dental surgeons in province of Sindh that is 5656, a sample size of 360 above was calculated using open epi software. Questionnaires were collected from May 2015 till July 2015.Convenience sampling was done in three hospitals of Karachi. Inclusion Criteria was Dental surgeons registered with PMDC using X-ray units in their daily practice. Exclusion Criteria was those dentist who did not have X-ray facility in their offices.


Result: A total of 363 questionnaires were filled. Regarding knowledge of x-ray equipment regarding Cone type, 84.6%used long cone, only 2% used short cone and about13% didnt know about cone length. The technique use to take x-ray about 65% use parallel angle,17% use bisecting angle and 18% use both types of techniques The speed of film 56% used D speed film14% used E speed film and 28% don’t have any idea about speed of film. Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority is a known authority for 53% and about 45% don’t know about Pakistan. Regarding attitude of dental surgeons that during routine dental exam when they take x-ray 56% during routine checkup and follow-ups and 1.9% didn’t know when to take x-rays. About the attitude of dental surgeons that during routine dental exam when they take x-ray 56% during routine checkup and follow-ups 43.8 % when dentist can observe carious lesions. In third molar impaction or infection 80% dentist prescribe OPG x-ray 17% prescribe opg when more than 2 carious teeth 1.9% didn’t know when to prescribe an opg x-ray. How many periapical x-ray dental surgeon did on daily basis 39.9%said less than 5 x-rays 14% said less than 10 x-rays ,33% said 10 to 15 x-rays, 11% said 15 to 20 x-rays. Behavior of Dental Practitioners towards Dental x-rays. Regarding film holder was used during x-ray by 40% of practitioners, 59% didn’t used film holder and1% didn’t know about its use.  Walls of x-ray room covered with lead 29% said yes 39% said no 31% didn’t know about it. About 62% said yes that during x-ray Lead apron and thyroid collar were used during x-ray 37% did not used lead apron and thyroid collar.


Conclusion: In conclusion, the results indicate that for minimizing any unnecessary radiation, attempts should be made to improve dentists’ knowledge about radiation dose reduction. Since knowledge and education have strong direct effects on dentists’ Behaviour, post graduate education courses must frequently be held by dental faculties to refresh the dentist’s knowledge of the radiographic procedures and to inform them about the new technologies.

Abstract 110 | PDF Downloads 48

References

1. White SC, Heslop EW, Hollender LG, Mosier KM, Ruprecht A,Shrout MK. Parameters of radiologic care: an official report of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 498–511.
2. Tugnait A, Clerehugh DV, Hirschmann PN. Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental practice. A survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales. J Dent 2003; 31: 197–203.
3. Ludlow JB, Platin E. Densitometric comparisions of Ultra-speed,Ekstaspeed and Ekstaspeed Plus intraoral films for two processing conditions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radio Endod 1995;79: 105–113.
4. JKM Ap,Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2010) 39, 113–118. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/52763613
5. Kullendorff B, Petersson K, Rohlin M. Direct digital radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions: a clinical study. Endod DentTraumatol 1997; 13: 183–189.
6. 1.Radiation. Accessed at www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Position-Statements/Position-Statements-Folder/ACR-Statement-on-Airport-Full-body-Scanners-and-Radiation on February 10,2015
7. Price C. Sensitometric evaluation of a new E-speed dental radiographic film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1995; 24: 30–36
8. D I˙lgu¨y*, M I˙lgu¨y, S Dinc¸er and G Bayırlı Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2004) 33, 334–339 q 2004 The British Institute of Radiology http://dmfr.birjournals.org
9. R Jacobs*,1, M Vanderstappen1, R Bogaerts2 and F Gijbels1 Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2005) 34, 222–227 q 2005 The British Institute of Radiology http://dmfr.birjournals.orgEklund
10. Eklund G, Izikowitz L, Molin C. Malignant tumours in Swedish dental personnel: a comparative study with the total population as well as with some specific occupational groups. Swed Dent J 1990;14: 249–254.
11. Miyaji CK, Colus IM. Cytogenetic biomonitoring of Braziliandentists occupationally exposed to low doses of X-radiation Pesqui Odontol Bras 2002; 16: 196–201.
12. Wingren G, Hallquist A, Degerman A, Hardell L. Occupation andfemale papillary cancer of the thyroid. J Occup Environ Med 1995;37: 294–297.
13. Eriksson M, Hardell L, Malker H, Weiner J. Increased cancer incidence in physicians, dentists, and health care workers. Oncol Rep 1998; 5: 1413–1418.
14. Rix BA, Lynge E. Cancer incidence in Danish health care workers. Scand J Soc Med 1996; 24: 114–120.
15. Marcos André dos Santos da Silva115.Oswaldo Serra dos Santos-Neto1 Jefson Moraes Amorim1 José Bauer2 RSBO. 2012 Jul-Sep;9(3):260-55.
16. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa). Serviços odontológicos: prevenção e controle de riscos. Brasília. Série A. Normas e Manuais Técnicos; 2006.