| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
RESEARCH |
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*Correspondence to: WER Berkhout, ACTA Department of Oral Radiology, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Email: e.berkhout{at}acta.nl
Received 17 September 2002; revised 11 February 2003; accepted 20 March 2003
Objectives: To compare the number of radiographs taken in general dental practices equipped with digital radiography vs conventional film-based radiography and to determine the reasons for any difference in numbers.
Methods: In a mail survey, 473 questionnaires were sent to Dutch General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) using digital radiography and 105 questionnaires were sent to GDPs using film. The questionnaire concerned the number of intraoral radiographs taken in the dental practice, as well as possible reasons to take more or fewer radiographs after conversion to digital radiography.
Results: The response rate was 73%. Users of a phosphor plate system on average take 42.8 radiographs per week and solid-state system users take 48.4 radiographs, whereas film users take on average only 32.5 radiographs per week. The need for more certainty about the planned or ongoing treatment as well as better diagnostics were the most important reasons for taking more radiographs.
Conclusions: It seems that GDPs using a system for digital radiography are more inclined to take radiographs than dentists taking conventional radiographs. Although digital intraoral radiography requires 50–80% less radiation per exposure than film, it is likely that the effective dose reduction after converting from conventional to digital radiography is less than 25% owing to the greater numbers of radiographs taken.
Keywords: radiography, dental, digital; radiation protection; intraoral radiography
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  P. F. van der Stelt Better Imaging: The Advantages of Digital Radiography J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2008; 139(suppl_3): 7S - 13S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Gallagher, A. Dowling, M. Devine, H. Bosmans, P. Kaplanis, U. Zdesar, J. Vassileva, and J. F. Malone EUROPEAN SURVEY OF DENTAL X-RAY EQUIPMENT Radiat Prot Dosimetry, February 28, 2008; (2008) ncn037v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Brian and G. Williamson Digital radiography in dentistry: a survey of Indiana dentists Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2007; 36(1): 18 - 23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Nicopoulou-Karayianni, T Koligliatis, C Donta-Bakogianni, and A Karayiannis The influence of the X-ray spectrum at compact bone-titanium interfaces in digital dental radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., November 1, 2006; 35(6): 426 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Wenzel A review of dentists' use of digital radiography and caries diagnosis with digital systems. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., September 1, 2006; 35(5): 307 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Li, P. van der Stelt, J. Verheij, R Speller, A Galbiati, F Psomadellis, R Turchetta, S Theodoridis, G Hall, B. Avset, et al. End-user survey for digital sensor characteristics: a pilot questionnaire study. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2006; 35(3): 147 - 151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Berkhout, D. Beuger, G. Sanderink, and P. van der Stelt The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure? Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2004; 33(1): 1 - 5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| BJR | DMFR | IMAGING | ALL BIR JOURNALS |
