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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chau, A. Articles by Wong, J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chau, A. Articles by Wong, J

A randomized double blinded study to assess the efficacy of a laser-guided collimator on dental radiography training

Oral Radiology, Oral Diagnosis, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

*Correspondence to: Thomas K L Li, Oral Radiology, The Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong; Email: thomasli{at}hku.hk

Received 13 March 2005; revised 30 August 2005; accepted 18 September 2005

Objectives: To assess the effect of a laser-guided collimator in intraoral radiography training.

Methods: A custom-made collimator with four red laser diodes on each corner on the rim of an aluminium alloy cubic housing was fabricated. The laser used low power diodes, which are classified as laser-safe by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). When activated, the effective dimensions of the laser beams were 4 cmx4.5 cm. Eighteen dental hygiene students were randomized into test and control groups. The Laser group used a rectangular collimator with the laser device, while the Non-laser group used a conventional rectangular collimator. Each group attended nine intraoral radiography training sessions. All radiographs were assessed and were classified into three categories: Excellent, Acceptable and Repeat, by a masked academic staff member. Reasons for repeats were marked. Statistical comparisons between the two groups were made.

Results: A total of 2334 radiographs were made. Conecut was more common on bitewings than periapicals. The Laser group produced fewer conecuts than the Non-laser group. The Laser group produced more excellent radiographs with fewer repeats than the Non-laser group, but there was not a significant difference.

Conclusions: The laser-guided collimator helped the students to produce fewer repeats in a shorter period of time. It was an effective training aid.

Keywords: radiography; dental; radiography; bitewing; education; dental; radiation protection