This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jacobs, R Articles by Gijbels, F Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jacobs, R Articles by Gijbels, F

Attitude of the Belgian dentist population towards radiation protection

¹ Oral Imaging Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium; ² Unit of Personal Dosimetry, Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

*Correspondence to: Reinhilde Jacobs, Oral Imaging Centre, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; Email: reinhilde.jacobs{at}uz.kuleuven.ac.be

Received 11 March 2004; revised 9 August 2004; accepted 15 August 2004

Objectives: To perform a survey of private dental offices in Belgium and gain insight in the knowledge and attitude of Belgian dentists towards quality care in radiography and radiation protection.

Methods: A questionnaire was distributed among 700 Belgian dental offices, which were included based on demographic data and the use of intraoral radiographic equipment.

Results: The response rate was 71%. Implementation of standards for quality care and radiation protection was suboptimal. In most offices, exposure settings of the intraoral radiation tube were 65 kV/kVp to 70 kV/kVp and 10 mA to 12 mA, with an average exposure time of 0.45 s. No reduction of exposure time was noticed when using faster film types. About one-third of the responders worked with digital image receptors. Aiming devices and rectangular collimation were used in a minority of practices (40% and 6%, respectively). The distance of the dentist to the radiation tube during exposure was on average 2.2 m, although 8% of the dentists assisted in holding the image receptor inside the patient's mouth. One quarter of the dentists were standing behind a wall when taking radiographs. Lead aprons were worn more often by female dentists. Dose estimation revealed that male dentists received a significantly larger effective dose per year than female dentists (8.3 mSv vs 3.2 mSv).

Conclusions: The implementation of standards of quality care for radiography and radiation protection could be improved among Belgian dentists. An elaborate educational programme in dental radiography is a prerequisite. Furthermore, recommendations could help to attain a change in attitude towards the use of ionizing radiation in order to meet European guidelines.

Keywords: radiography, dental; survey; radiation protection; Belgium

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				G Kaeppler, K Dietz, K Herz, and S Reinert Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 36(8): 506 - 513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Kaeppler, K Dietz, and S Reinert Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2007; 36(2): 75 - 79. [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]

				F Gijbels, R Jacobs, D Debaveye, R Bogaerts, S Verlinden, and G Sanderink Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part II: occupational exposure Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2005; 34(3): 150 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]