DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sewell, J.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sewell, J.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 30, Issue 5 260-263, Copyright © 2001 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

The use of panoramic radiography in a dental accident and emergency department

J. Sewell, N. Drage and J. Brown
Department of Dental Radiology, Guy's King's and St Thomas's Dental Institute, London, UK.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of appropriate requests for panoramic radiography (PR) in a Dental Accident and Emergency Department and the implications for patient dose. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-one requests for PR during July 1998 were assessed by two dental radiologists and categorised as appropriate or inappropriate based on established selection criteria. Incidental findings that might alter patient management were also noted. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven requests (58%) were considered appropriate and 114 (42%) inappropriate. The most common inappropriate request was to assess disease localised to one or two teeth. Dental students were involved in 186 requests and 76 of these (41%) were inappropriate. The estimated saving in collective radiation dose over the month of the study if appropriate radiographs had been taken, would have been approximately 540 microSv, a reduction of 70%. Three out of 114 (3%) inappropriate, PRS showed minor incidental findings. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of requests for PR were inappropriate. In most of these cases, periapical radiographs would have provided more detail with less radiation dose. The large number of inappropriate requests involving dental students has implications for educators. The use of local selection criteria based on currently accepted guidelines would have reduced the dose substantially.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2001 by the British Institute of Radiology.