Volume 5, Issue 4 (11-2020)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2020, 5(4): 26-30 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Fatima A, Mishra S. Knowledge and Attitude of Dentists and Dental Students Towards Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2020; 5 (4) :26-30
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-288-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-288-en.html
1- Post graduate student, Department of oral medicine and radiology, Al Badar Rural Dental college and hospital, Kalaburagi, India. , fatima68645@yahoo.com
2- post graduate student , institute of dental sciences, Bhubaneshwar , india
2- post graduate student , institute of dental sciences, Bhubaneshwar , india
Abstract: (2713 Views)
Background and Aim: The selection of an appropriate imaging or diagnostic technique is an important therapeutic step, which protects patients from the harmful effects of radiation. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitude of dentists and dental students towards cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: This analytical-descriptive study evaluated a closed-ended questionnaire consisting of 16 questions, which was given to 100 participants, including faculty members, postgraduate students, and interns of our institution. Their response was analyzed by chi-square test.
Results: In total, 100 questionnaires were analyzed. The mean age of the study population was 31.43±18 years (range: 23-45 years). Approximately 94% of the participants knew that the radiation dosage of CBCT is lower than that of CT. They obtained knowledge about CBCT through the committed dose equivalent (CDE), journals, seminars, internet, etc. Approximately 40% of the participants preferred CBCT scans for implant placement, 24% for trauma, 22% for cysts and tumors, and 14% for root canal treatment. About 54% of the participants considered CBCT as a part of the oral medicine and radiology domain and considered it necessary in oral and maxillofacial radiology departments only.
Conclusion: This study showed that the participants had the knowledge and a positive attitude towards the regular use of CBCT for various clinical applications. This study also suggests that CBCT training of dental students helps all dentists to improve the precision and reliability of oral and maxillofacial-related diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis by effectual use of this technology.
Materials and Methods: This analytical-descriptive study evaluated a closed-ended questionnaire consisting of 16 questions, which was given to 100 participants, including faculty members, postgraduate students, and interns of our institution. Their response was analyzed by chi-square test.
Results: In total, 100 questionnaires were analyzed. The mean age of the study population was 31.43±18 years (range: 23-45 years). Approximately 94% of the participants knew that the radiation dosage of CBCT is lower than that of CT. They obtained knowledge about CBCT through the committed dose equivalent (CDE), journals, seminars, internet, etc. Approximately 40% of the participants preferred CBCT scans for implant placement, 24% for trauma, 22% for cysts and tumors, and 14% for root canal treatment. About 54% of the participants considered CBCT as a part of the oral medicine and radiology domain and considered it necessary in oral and maxillofacial radiology departments only.
Conclusion: This study showed that the participants had the knowledge and a positive attitude towards the regular use of CBCT for various clinical applications. This study also suggests that CBCT training of dental students helps all dentists to improve the precision and reliability of oral and maxillofacial-related diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis by effectual use of this technology.
Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radiography, Dental, Digital/Methods
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Radiology
References
1. Katti P. Evaluating Dental Practitioner's Knowledge and Attitudes towards Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Belgaum - India: A Questionnaire Study. J Oral Med. 2018:2(1):4.
2. Rai S, Misra D, Dhawan A, Tyagi K, Prabhat M, Khatri M. Knowledge, awareness, and aptitude of general dentists toward dental radiology and CBCT: A questionnaire study. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2018;30(2):110-5.
3. Shah P, Venkatesh R. Dental students' knowledge and attitude towards cone beam computed tomography. An Indian scenario. Indian J Dent Res. 2016;27(6):581-5. [DOI:10.4103/0970-9290.199589] [PMID]
4. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:609-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028] [PMID]
5. Yalcinkaya SE, Berker YG, Peker S, Basturk FB. Knowledge and attitudes of Turkish endodontists towards digital radiology and cone beam computed tomography. Niger J Clin Pract. 2014 Jul-Aug;17(4):471-8. [DOI:10.4103/1119-3077.134044] [PMID]
6. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Jan;103(1):114-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.01.001] [PMID]
7. Chau AC, Fung K. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Apr;107(4):559-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.009] [PMID]
8. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):707-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005] [PMID]
9. Arnheiter C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Trends in maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography usage. Oral Radiol. 2006;22:80-5. [DOI:10.1007/s11282-006-0055-6]
10. cd
11. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006 Jul;35(4):219-26. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323. Erratum in: Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006 Sep;35(5):392. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/14340323] [PMID]
12. Strindberg JE, Hol C, Torgersen G, Møystad A, Nilsson M, Näsström K, Hellén-Halme K. Comparison of Swedish and Norwegian Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: a Questionnaire Study. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2015 Dec 31;6(4):e2. [DOI:10.5037/jomr.2015.6402] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Svenson B, Ståhlnacke K, Karlsson R, Fält A. Dentists' use of digital radiographic techniques: Part I - intraoral X-ray: a questionnaire study of Swedish dentists. Acta Odontol Scand. 2018 Mar;76(2):111-8. [DOI:10.1080/00016357.2017.1387930] [PMID]
14. Dölekoğlu S, Fişekçioğlu E, İlgüy M, İlgüy D. The usage of digital radiography and cone beam computed tomography among Turkish dentists. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Sep;40(6):379-84. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/27837552] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Mehralizadeh S, Talaipour A, Olyaee P, Amiri Siavoshani M. Correlation Between Tissue Densities in Computed Tomography and Three Different Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Units (In Vitro). J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci. 2020;5(1):13-20. [DOI:10.29252/jrdms.5.1.13]
16. Navabi N, Shahravan A, Khoshroo S, Asadi L. The Status of Evidence-Based Dentistry in Iran. J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci. 2016; 1 (1) :1-3. [DOI:10.29252/jrdms.1.1.1]
17. Ghoncheh Z, Panjnoush M, Kaviani H, Kharazifard MJ, Zahirnia F. Knowledge and Attitude of Iranian Dentists towards Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Front Dent. 2019 Sep-Oct;16(5):379-85. [DOI:10.18502/fid.v16i5.2292] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
