AWARENESS AND USE OF CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CBCT) OF TURKISH DENTIST

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 2, 169 - 175, 22.03.2019

Katibe Tuğçe Temur , Ömer Hatıpoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.471510

Cited By: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Aim: In this study, it was aimed to evaluate competence and awareness of dentists in Turkey with regard to use and application of cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT).

Material and Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 12 questions was sent to approximately 2.000 dentists via electronic media. Feedback was received from 105 dentists. Completed questionnaires were examined and statistically analyzed using the results and chi-square test. Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results: Of the dentists participating in the study, 91.4% reported they had CBCT awareness. In the study, 55.2% of dentists reported that they could interpret CBCT images. Of those who had knowledge about CBCT, 66.7% think that the training they get during undergraduate education is not enough. According to the study, CBCT was found to be used most commonly during implant planning (78.1%). This was followed by cyst-tumor (9.5%), orthodontic causes (1%) and trauma (1%).

Conclusion: Today, Turkish dentists have a high awareness of CBCT. However, the interpret ability on CBCT images is not at the desired level. To meet the need for CBCT training of dentists in Turkey, hands-on training could be given at the universities along with theoretical lectures and practical courses rather than theoretical knowledge given by oral and maxillofacial radiology specialists after undergraduate education could be enhanced.

Keywords: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Education, Awareness, Dentist

TÜRK DİŞ HEKİMLERİNİN KONİK IŞINLI BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİ (KIBT) KULLANIMI VE FARKINDALIĞI

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de diş hekimleri arasındaki konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografinin (KIBT) kullanımına ve uygulanması yönelik yeterlilik ve farkındalıklarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Materyal ve metod: Elektronik ortamdan yaklaşık 2000 diş hekimlerine 12 adet sorudan oluşan anket gönderildi. Ancak 105 diş hekiminden geri bildirim alındı. Tamamlanan anketler incelendi, sonuçlar ve ki-kare testi kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi. Veri analizi, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences  23.0 versiyonu (SPSS Inc., Chicago, ll., ABD) kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan diş hekimlerinin %91,4 ünü KIBT farkındalığı olduğunu bildirdi. Çalışmada, diş hekimlerinin %55,2'si KIBT görüntülerini yorumlayabileceklerini bildirdi.   KIBT hakkında bilgi sahibi olan diş hekimlerin %66,7 si lisans eğitiminde aldıkları eğitimin yeterli olmadığını düşünmektedir. Çalışmaya göre KIBT’ e en çok implant planlaması (%78,1) sırasında başvurulduğu bulunmuştur. Bunu kist-tümör (%9,5), ortodontik sebepler (%1), travma (%1) takip etti.

Sonuç: Günümüzde Türk diş hekimlerinin KIBT farkındalığı oldukça yüksektir. Ancak KIBT görüntülerinin yorumlanmasında ki yeterlilik istenilen seviyede değildir.  Türkiye de diş hekimlerinin KIBT eğitimi ihtiyacına cevap vermek adına üniversitelerde teorik derslerin yanında, vaka üzerinde pratik derslere yer verilebileceği gibi lisans eğitimi sonrasında ağız diş ve çene radyolojisi uzmanları tarafından verilecek olan kurs ve seminerlerde teorik bilgiden çok kesitler üzerinde pratik eğitimler artırılabilir.

Anahtar Kelime: Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, Eğitim, Farkındalık, Diş hekimi

Keywords

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Education, Awareness

References

• 1. Angelopoulos C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas of the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 2012;20:1-17.
• 2. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Journal-Canadian Dental Association. 2006;72:75.
• 3. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant dentistry. 2012;21:78-86.
• 4. Akarslan Z, Peker İ. Reasons of cone-beam computed tomography examination requests in a dental faculty. Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2015;32:1-6.
• 5. Cakur B, Sümbüllü MA, Durna D, Canakcı CF. Dental volumetric computed tomography in the radiological detection of dento-alveolar fracture. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2012;22:57-60.
• 6. Evlice BK, Oztunç H. Digital radiography and advanced imaging techniques in dentistry. Archives Medical Review Journal. 2013;22:230-8.
• 7. Ahmed F, Brooks SL, Kapila SD. Efficacy of identifying maxillofacial lesions in cone-beam computed tomographs by orthodontists and orthodontic residents with third-party software. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2012;141:451-9. 8. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2006;35:219-26.
• 9. Farman AG. Guest Editorial-Self-referral: an ethical concern with respect to multidimensional imaging in dentistry? Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2009;17:1678-7757.
• 10. Dolekoglu S, Fisekcioglu E, Ilguy M, Ilguy D. The usage of digital radiography and cone beam computed tomography among Turkish dentists. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2011;40: 379-84.
• 11. Eltayeb AS, Satti A, Ahmad AG. Knowledge and Attitudes of Dentists towards Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Khartoum, Sudan 2017;7:32-5.
• 12. Reddy RS, Kiran CS, Ramesh T, Kumar BN, Naik RM, Ramya K. Knowledge and attitude of dental fraternity towards cone beam computed tomography in south India–A questionnaire study. Indian Journal of Dentistry. 2013;4:88-94.
• 13. Shetty S, Castelino R, Babu S, Laxmana A, Roopashri K. Knowledge and attitude of dentists towards cone beam computed tomography in mangalore–a questionnaire survey. Austin J Radiol. 2015;2:1016.
• 14. Strindberg JE, Hol C, Torgersen G, Møystad A, Nilsson M, Näsström K, et al. Comparison of Swedish and Norwegian use of cone-beam computed tomography: a questionnaire study. Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 2015;6:2.
• 15. Kamburoğlu K, Kurşun Ş, Akarslan Z. Dental students' knowledge and attitudes towards cone beam computed tomography in Turkey. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2011;40:439-43.
• 16. Zain-Alabdeen EH, El Khateeb SM. Comparison of knowledge and perspectives toward cone-beam computed tomography among dentists in three Middle East regions: A cross-sectional study. Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences. 2018;5:3.
• 17. Arnheiter C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Trends in maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography usage. Oral Radiology. 2006;22:80-5.
• 18. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics. 2000;89:630-7.
• 19. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2012;113:817-26.
• 20. Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontology 2000. 2017;73:51-72.
• 21. Dula K, Bornstein MM, Buser D, Dagassan-Berndt D, Ettlin DA, Filippi A, et al. SADMFR guidelines for the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/Digital Volume Tomography. Swiss dental journal. 2014;124:1169-83.