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 Svenson, B.
Right arrow Articles by Grondahl, H. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Svenson, B.
Right arrow Articles by Grondahl, H. G.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 25, Issue 3 157-161, Copyright © 1996 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Attitudes of Swedish dentists to the choice of dental X-ray film and collimator for oral radiology

B. Svenson, B. Soderfeldt and H. G. Grondahl
Department of Oral Diagnostic Radiology, Postgraduate Dental Education Center, Orebro, Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use of E-speed film and rectangular collimation by Swedish dentists as a means of dose limitation in relation to their attitudes towards radiation hazards. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 2000 randomly selected general dental practitioners to assess their use of different types of dental X-ray film and collimators and their attitudes and knowledge on methods of dose reduction. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the effects of postgraduate courses, gender, age, working alone, and working in the Public Dental Health Service (PDHS) or private practice (PP) on the type of film and collimator used. RESULTS: The response rate was 69.3%. D-speed film was used by 52% and E-speed film by 47%. Round open-ended 6 cm collimators were used by 42%, while 29% used rectangular collimators. Dentists in the PDHS, who viewed dental radiography as a 'high-risk' procedure and who had attended a one-week continuing education course were twice as likely to use dose-limitation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Extended continuing education courses and working in PDHS promote the use of low-dose techniques. Prospects for changing the present situation are good, provided that efforts are made to increase the awareness of radiation hazards and knowledge of new techniques in under- and postgraduate education. Mandatory continuing education is proposed.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
A. Gallagher, A. Dowling, J. Renehan, D. Clarke, and J. F. Malone
A training syllabus for radiation protection in dental radiology
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 219 - 221.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
A. Chau, T. Li, and J Wong
A randomized double blinded study to assess the efficacy of a laser-guided collimator on dental radiography training.
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2006; 35(3): 200 - 204.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1996 by the British Institute of Radiology.