Attitude of General and Specialist Dental practitioners towards Radiation Safety Principles

S. Mortazavi, A. Yazdi, Gholamhassan Rahmannia
{"title":"Attitude of General and Specialist Dental practitioners towards Radiation Safety Principles","authors":"S. Mortazavi, A. Yazdi, Gholamhassan Rahmannia","doi":"10.22038/JDMT.2021.53506.1400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine the attitude of dental practitioners towards radiation protection principles and radiographic techniques. We aimed to assess whether dentists’ specialty and university membership impacted the conducts of radiologic practice. Methods: A total of 232 dental offices with intraoral radiographic devices in Mashhad, Iran were randomly selected. Demographic characteristics of dentists as well as radiographic equipment and techniques were recorded. Participants were grouped according to specialty and faculty membership. Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis and comparison of groups by Statistical Package SPSS v.23. Results: 190 dentists (81.9%) were in general dental practice (GDP) and the remaining 42 (18.1%) worked as specialists in different fields. A significant difference was noted regarding the use of digital sensors between general and specialist dentists (16.8% vs. 35.7%, respectively). Paralleling technique using film holders was employed by 28.6% of specialists and 10% of the general dentists (p<0.05). Half of the specialists used routine thyroid shielding; however, only 28.4% of the GDPs followed this practice (p<0.05). Among the specialists, 19 (45.2%) had faculty membership. Use of a rectangular collimation, long cone, and thyroid shield, except variable exposure time were more common in non-faculty members, although not significantly different. Conclusion: Although most dentists did not follow the standard radiological guidelines, it was noticeable that specialist dentists used more appropriate radiographic techniques. Attention should be focused on under- and postgraduate education and employing strict policies for dental radiologic safety measures.","PeriodicalId":15640,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","volume":"79 1","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/JDMT.2021.53506.1400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine the attitude of dental practitioners towards radiation protection principles and radiographic techniques. We aimed to assess whether dentists’ specialty and university membership impacted the conducts of radiologic practice. Methods: A total of 232 dental offices with intraoral radiographic devices in Mashhad, Iran were randomly selected. Demographic characteristics of dentists as well as radiographic equipment and techniques were recorded. Participants were grouped according to specialty and faculty membership. Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis and comparison of groups by Statistical Package SPSS v.23. Results: 190 dentists (81.9%) were in general dental practice (GDP) and the remaining 42 (18.1%) worked as specialists in different fields. A significant difference was noted regarding the use of digital sensors between general and specialist dentists (16.8% vs. 35.7%, respectively). Paralleling technique using film holders was employed by 28.6% of specialists and 10% of the general dentists (p<0.05). Half of the specialists used routine thyroid shielding; however, only 28.4% of the GDPs followed this practice (p<0.05). Among the specialists, 19 (45.2%) had faculty membership. Use of a rectangular collimation, long cone, and thyroid shield, except variable exposure time were more common in non-faculty members, although not significantly different. Conclusion: Although most dentists did not follow the standard radiological guidelines, it was noticeable that specialist dentists used more appropriate radiographic techniques. Attention should be focused on under- and postgraduate education and employing strict policies for dental radiologic safety measures.
普通牙医及专科牙医对辐射安全原则的态度
前言:本研究的目的是确定牙科医生对辐射防护原则和放射摄影技术的态度。我们的目的是评估牙医的专业和大学会员资格是否影响放射学实践的行为。方法:随机选取伊朗马什哈德市232家有口腔内x线设备的牙科诊所。记录了牙医的人口统计学特征以及放射照相设备和技术。参与者根据专业和教员进行分组。统计学分析和组间比较采用χ 2检验,统计软件为SPSS v.23。结果:190名牙医(占GDP的81.9%)从事普通牙科工作,其余42名牙医(占18.1%)从事不同领域的专科工作。在数字传感器的使用方面,普通牙医和专科牙医之间存在显著差异(分别为16.8%和35.7%)。28.6%的专科医生和10%的普通牙医采用平行膜夹技术(p<0.05)。一半的专家使用常规甲状腺屏蔽;然而,只有28.4%的gdp遵循了这一做法(p<0.05)。在专家中,有19人(45.2%)是教员。使用矩形准直,长锥和甲状腺屏蔽,除了可变的曝光时间在非教师中更常见,尽管没有显着差异。结论:虽然大多数牙医没有遵循标准的放射学指南,但值得注意的是,专科牙医使用了更合适的放射学技术。应重视本科生和研究生教育,并采取严格的牙科放射安全措施政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信