Dentists ' perceptions and Methods regarding the radiographic examinations and radiation protection: A 2022 research in Thessaloniki, Greece

Liappis Evangelos^a, Adamopoulou Marina Roza^a, Angelopoulou Niki^a, Diakaki Natalia^a, Vafeidou Ioanna^a, Papadeli Chrysi^b

^aAristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Dentistry, Thessaloniki, Greece
^bAristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Dentistry, Department of Dentoalveolar Surgery, Implantology and Oral Radiology, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Surgery & Radiology, Laboratory Educational Staff, Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract

Background/Aim: Dentistry has made major progress due to modern advancements in radiology. It would be interesting to examine the correlation of dental science with the labor market, as well as to assess dentists’ adaption to nowadays’ scientific and financial circumstances. This research aims to investigate the opinions of dentists in Thessaloniki, Greece, with regard to choosing the appropriate radiographic examinations in various clinical cases, and to canvass their knowledge of radiation protection. Material and Methods: Our sample was comprised of 7% of private dentists working in the urban complex within the borders of Thessaloniki, Greece. Self-referential multiple choice questionnaires were distributed via email. For the statistical analysis, GoogleForms was utilized, and objectivity was guaranteed by ensuring participants’ anonymity. Results: The replies underwent statistical analysis with the use of Google Forms, and through this process charts have been produced. Orthopantomograph is the most usual radiographic examination for new patients and for the evaluation of complications. Dentists’ age and gender seem to affect their radiographic choices in everyday clinical practice. Regarding intraoral radiography, the paralleling technique is more usually applied. Moreover, the findings suggest the need for dentists’ constant education on radiation protection. Last but not least, most participants choose digital intraoral radiography. Conclusions: Dentists tend to seek assistance from radiological laboratories for special radiographies, such as cone-beam computed tomography, as well as in cases of diagnostic dilemma. They also recognize digitalization’s contribution to keeping health records. Consequently, clinicians’ additional education, financial motives for the upgrade of radiological equipment and records’ digitalization are fundamental prerequisites for modern dentistry.

Keywords: cone-beam computed tomography; digital radiography; orthopantomography; radiation protection; radiography; radiation equipment

Reference

Manousaridis GK. (2016). Definition of diagnostic reference levels for dental radiographic examinations in Greece through data from quality control audits of medical radiologic facilities [Doctoral dissertation]

Tsapaki V, Balter S, Cousins C, Holmberg O, Miller DL, Miranda P, et al. The International Atomic Energy Agency action plan on radiation protection of patients and staff in international procedures: Achieving change in practice. Phys Med, 2018;52:56-64

The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP, 2007;37:1-332

Sitareni M, Karera A, Amkongo M, Daniels E. Justification of radiological procedures: Radiographers’ experiences at two public hospitals. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci, 2023;54: 312-318

Tsiklakis K, Karagianni A. Radiology protection. In: Diagnostics and Oral Radiology. Athens: Medical Publications Litsas, 2018: pp:191-199

Kofler B, Jenetten L, Runge A, Degenhart G, Fischer N, Hörmann R, et al. ALADA Dose Optimization in the Computed Tomography of the Temporal Bone: The Diagnostic Potential of Different Low-Dose CT Protocols. Diagnostics, 2021;11:1894

Lurie AG. Doses, Benefits, Safety, and Risks in Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostic Imaging. Health Phys, 2019;116:163-169

Rehani MM. Old enemy, new threat: you can’t solve today’s problems with yesterday’s solution. J Radiol Prot, 2021;41:452

Lurie AG, Kantor ML. Contemporary radiation protection in dentistry: Recommendations of National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 177. J Am Dent Assoc, 2020;151:716-719

Masthoff M, Gerwing M, Masthoff M, Timme M, Kleinheinz J, Berninger M, et al. Dental Imaging -A basic guide for the radiologist. Fortschr Röntgenstr, 2019;191:192-198

Vlasiadis K, Samaritaki E, Koutsamani M, Konstantinidis T, Tzoutzas IG. The effects of the financial crisis on the general and dental health status of Greek citizens. Int J Health Mgmt, 2019;34:1485-1496

Shirahmadi S, Seyedzadeh-Sabounchi S, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, Miresmaeili AF, Bayat Z, et al. Fear control and danger control amid COVID-19 dental crisis: Application of the Extended Parallel Process Model. PLoS ONE, 2020;15:e0237490

Pal S, Bhattacharya PT, Sinha R. Radiation protection in dentistry -Do we practice what we learn? J Adv Clin Res Insights, 2015;2:155-159

Basheer B, Albawardi K, Alsanie S, Alotaibi B, Alanazi M, Alfaini H, et al. Knowledge, Attitudes and Perception toward Radiation Hazards and Protection among Dental Professionals in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int J Med Res Health Sci, 2019;8:75-81

Jacobs R, Vanderstappen M, Bogaerts R, Gijbels F. Attitude of the Belgian dentist population towards radiation protection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2004;33:334-339

Tsapaki V. Radiation protection in dental radiology – Recent advances and future directions. Physica Medica, 2017;44:222-226

Lee B-D, Ludlow JB. Attitude of the Korean dentists toward radiation safety and selection criteria. Imaging Sci Dent, 2013;43:179-184

Joda T, Waltimo T, Probst-Hensch N, Pauli-Magnus C, Zitzmann NU. Health Data in Dentistry: An Attempt to Master the Digital Challenge. Public Health Geromics, 2019;22:1-7

Tallarico M. Computerization and Digital Workflow in Medicine: Focus on Digital Dentistry. Materials, 2020;13:2172

An SY, Lee KM, Lee JS. Korean dentists’ perceptions and attitudes regarding radiation safety and protection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2018;47:20170228

Molteni R. The way we were (and how we got here): fifty years of technology changes in dental and maxillofacial radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2021;50:20200133

Ihle IR, Neibling E, Albrecht K, Treston H, Sholapurkar A. Investigation of radiation-protection knowledge, attitudes, and practices of North Queensland dentists. J Invest Clin Dent, 2019;10:e12374

Maddalone M, Bonfanti E, Pellegatta A, Citterio CL, Baldoni M. Digital Orthopantomography vs Cone Beam Computed Tomography -Part 1: Detection of Periapical Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2019;20:593-597

Chaudhry M, Jayaprakash K, Shivalingesh KK, Agarwal V, Gupta B, Anand R, et al. Oral Radiology Safety Standards Adopted by the General Dentists Practicing in National Capital Region (NCR). J Clin Diagn Res, 2016;10:ZC42-45

Mallya MS, Lam EWN. White and Pharoah’s Oral Radiology. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier, 2019:93-127

Sheikh S, Pallagatti S, Singla I, Gupta R, Aggarwal A, Singh R, et al. Survey of dental radiographical practice in States of Punjab and Haryana in India. J Invest Clin Dent, 2014;5:72-77

Chiapasco M, Zaniboni M. Basic principles. In: Manual of Oral Surgery, 3 th ed. Northlake Boulevard: Edra Publishing US LLC, 2018:3-28

Yasa Y, Sadik E. Survey of dental radiological practice among private dentists in Ordu, Turkey. Gulhane Med J, 2018;60:9-13

Yen M, Yeung AWK. The Performance of Paralleling Technique and Bisecting Angle Technique for Taking Periapical Radiographs: A Systematic Review. Dent J, 2023;11:155

Friedlander-Barenboim S, Hamed W, Zini A, Yarom N, Abramovitz I, Chweidan H, et al. Patterns of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Utilization by Various Dental Specialties: A 4-Year Retrospective Analysis from a Dental and Maxillofacial Specialty Center. Healthcare 2021;9:1042

Venkatesh E, Elluru SV. Cone beam computed tomography: basics and applications in dentistry. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent, 2017;51:S102-S121

Patel PS, Shah JS, Dudhia BB, Butala PB, Jani YV, Macwan RS. Comparison of panoramic radiograph and cone beam computed tomography findings for impacted mandibular third molar root and inferior alveolar nerve canal relation. Indian J Dent Res, 2020;31:91-102

Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health, 2018;18:88

Kottou S, Zapros A, Stefanopoulos N, Krompas N, Tsapaki V. Cone Beam CT in dental implant planning: how close are patient dosimetry results with data from phantom studies found in literature? Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2019;187:321-326

Hajeer M, Al-Homsi H, Alfailany DT, Murad RMT. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT-based interpretations of maxillary impacted canines compared to those of conventional radiography: An in vitro study. Int Orthod, 2022;20:100639

Almuqrin AH, Tamam N, Abdelariz A, Elnour A, Sulieman A. Organ dose and radiogenic risk in dental cone-beam computed tomography examinations. Radiat Phys Chem, 2020;176:108971

Gray CF. Practice-Based Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Review. Primary Dental Care, 2010;17:161-167

Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine, 2023, vol. 27, br. 3, str. 167-175

Select Issue

Dentists ‘ perceptions and Methods regarding the radiographic examinations and radiation protection: A 2022 research in Thessaloniki, Greece

Liappis Evangelos^a, Adamopoulou Marina Roza^a, Angelopoulou Niki^a, Diakaki Natalia^a, Vafeidou Ioanna^a, Papadeli Chrysi^b

Abstract

Reference

Liappis Evangelosa, Adamopoulou Marina Rozaa, Angelopoulou Nikia, Diakaki Nataliaa, Vafeidou Ioannaa, Papadeli Chrysib

Abstract

Reference

Liappis Evangelos^a, Adamopoulou Marina Roza^a, Angelopoulou Niki^a, Diakaki Natalia^a, Vafeidou Ioanna^a, Papadeli Chrysi^b