DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rushton, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Horner, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rushton, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Horner, K.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 23, Issue 1 37-45, Copyright © 1994 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

A comparative study of radiographic quality with five periapical techniques in general dental practice

V. E. Rushton and K. Horner
Unit of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine and Surgery, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, UK.

The use of film holders for intraoral radiography is advocated in current guidelines to British dentists. No assessment of the use of film holders has been carried out in a general dental practice environment. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a range of film holders for periapical radiography in general dental practices in terms of the diagnostic quality of the radiographs. Twelve general dental practitioners (GDPs) were recruited to participate in the study. Each GDP was asked to perform 50 periapical radiographs using their conventional (bisecting angle) technique (BAT) followed by 50 using, in turn, four film holders: the Stabe (S), the Eggen (E), the Rinn (R) and the 'Superbite' devices (SB). Each radiograph was examined simultaneously by two assessors, scored for film faults and diagnostic acceptability. With BAT, 44.5% of radiographs were diagnostically unacceptable, while using film holders 32.8% (S), 33.7% (E), 38.2% (R) and 35.8% (SB) were unacceptable. These reductions in unacceptable films were highly significant (P < 0.01) for S and E techniques, significant (P < 0.05) for SB, while with R the reduction was not statistically significant. These results give support for the use of film holders for periapical radiography. However, their effectiveness may be improved by better manufacturers' instructions and practical training of GDPs.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
V. Rushton, P. Hirschmann, and D. Bearn
The effectiveness of undergraduate teaching of the identification of radiographic film faults
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2005; 34(6): 337 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1994 by the British Institute of Radiology.