THE APPROACHES OF TURKISH PEDIATRIC DENTISTS TO THE USE OF CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Year 2020, Volume: 30 Issue: 3, 406 - 411, 15.07.2020

Katibe Tuğçe Temur Aslı Soğukpınar Ömer Hatipoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.706776

Cited By: 1

Abstract

TÜRKİYEDE ÇOCUK DİŞ HEKİMLERİNİN KONİK IŞINLI BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİ KULLANIMINA YAKLAŞIMI
Amaç: Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT) gibi konvansiyonel görüntüleme yöntemlerine göre daha fazla radyasyon dozu gerektiren yöntemlerin çocuklarda kullanımı ve endikasyonları hala tartışmalıdır. Bu makalede, Türk pedodontistleri arasında KIBT kullanım sıklığı, endikasyonlarını değerlendirmek ve eğitim ihtiyacının anlaşılması amaçlanmıştır.
Materyal ve Metod: Elektronik ortamdan 210 pedodontiste sosyodemografik özellikleri ve KIBT kullanımını değerlendiren, iki kısımdan oluşan anket uygulandı. Anketin bir bölümünde pedodontistlerin cinsiyet ve yaş gibi demografik özellikleri ile ilgili sorular vardı. Diğer bölümde, KIBT kullanımı ile ilgili sorular vardı. 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: %95,4’ü çocuk hastada ilk başvurduğu radyografi yönteminin panoramik radyografi ve periapikal radyografi olarak bildirdi. Türk pedodontistlerin % 75,2’ si çocuk hastada KIBT’ nin gerekli olduğunu bildirdi. KIBT’ ye en sık kist tümör vakalarında başvurulduğu bildirildi. Pedodontistlerin %84,8’i KIBT konusunda daha fazla eğitime ihtiyacı olduğunu bildirdi.
Sonuç:
Türk pedodontistler KIBT’ yi kesinlikle gerekli görmektedirler ve bu konuda eğitime ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Çocuk hastada sıklıkla küçük FOV alanı tercih etmekteler. En sık kist tümör vakalarında KIBT’ ye başvurmaktalar.
Anahtar Kelime: Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, Pedodonti, Çocuk
ABSTRACT
Aim: The use and indications of methods that require more radiation dose than conventional imaging methods such as Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) are still controversial. In this article, it is aimed to evaluate the frequency of the use of CBCT among Turkish pedodontists, their indications and to understand the need for training.
Materials and Methods: Two-part questionnaire in an electronic environment was applied to 210 pedodontists to evaluate sociodemographic characteristics and CBCT usage. One part of the questionnaire included questions about the demographic characteristics of pedodontists such as gender and age. In the other section, there were questions about the use of CBCT. The results of the survey were evaluated with the chi-square test. Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, II., USA).
Results: 95.4% reported that panoramic radiography and periapical radiographs were the initial radiologic methods applied in children. 75.2% of Turkish pedodontists reported that CBCT was necessary for a pediatric patient. CBCT was reported to be used most commonly in cases with cyst-tumor. 84.8% of pedodontists reported that they needed more training on CBCT.
Conclusions: Turkish pedodontists consider that CBCT is absolutely necessary and they need training on this topic. They often prefer a small FOV area in pediatric patients. They most commonly prefer CBCT in cases of cyst and tumour.
Keywords: Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Pedodontics, Child

Keywords

Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, Pedodonti

References

• 1) European Commission. Radiation protection 172: evidence based guidelines on cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2012; http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/172.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).
• 2) Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 24– 34.
• 3) Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y, Sakaino R, Tsuchida R, Iwai K, Seki K, Araki K. Absorbed and effective doses from cone-beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiol 2009;38:79-85.
• 4) Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop: Off Publ Am Assoc Orthodontists, Constituent Soc, Am Board Orthod 2008;133:641-45.
• 5) .Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, Pauwels R, Bogaerts R, Dds RJ, Consortium SP. Estimation of pediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Brit J Radiol 2012;85:153-60.
• 6) Little MP. Heterogeneity of variation of relative risk by age at exposure in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Environ Bioph 2009;48:253-62.
• 7) Aps JK. CBCT in pediatric dentistry: Overview of recent literatüre. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2013;14:131-40.
• 8) Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X. Thyroid shields for radiation dose reduction during cone-beam computed tomography scanning for different oral and maxillofacial regions. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:376-80.
• 9) Marcu M, Hedesiu M, Salmon B, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Oenning ACC, Cohen ME, Jacobs R, Baciut M, Roman R. Estimation of the radiation dose for pediatric CBCT indications: a prospective study on ProMax3D. Int J Paediatr Dent 2018;28:300-09.
• 10) Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E, Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:1243-53
• 11) Hidalgo-Rivas JA, Theodorakou C, Carmichael F et al. Use of cone beam CT in children and young people in three United Kingdom dental hospitals. Int J Paediatr Dent 2014;24:336-348.
• 12) Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:267-71.
• 13) TUIK Statistical Data in Turkey. http://www.tuik.gov.tr. Accessed March 13, 2018.
• 14) Gecgelen Cesur M, Yilmaz A, Ozer T. Knowledge and attitudes towards digital radiography and CBCT among orthodontists. Biomed Res 2016; 27: 959-64.
• 15) 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.
• 16) Jacop WG, Acker V, Marters LC et al. CBCT in pediatric dentistry a retrospective observational study. Clinical oral investigatıons.2016:20; 1003-10.
• 17) Hajem S,Brogardh RS, Nilsson M et al. CBCT os Swedish children and adolescents at an oral maxillofacial radiology department. A survey of request and indications. Acta odontologia Scandinavica.2019; 1-8.
• 18) Giray FE1, Peker S1, Yalcinkaya SE2, Kargul B1, Aps J3. Attitudes and knowledge of pediatric dentists' on digital radiography and cone-beam computed tomography. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;69:205-210.
• 19) Van Acker JW, Martens LC, Aps JK. Cone-beam computed tomography in pediatric dentistry, a retrospective observational study. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1003-1010.
• 20) Setzer FC, Hinckley N, Kohli MR, Karabucak B (2017) A survey of cone-beam computed tomographic use amongst endodontic practitioners in the United States. Journal of Endodontics43, 699–704.
• 21) Carter JB, Stone JD, Clark RS, Mercer JE. Applications of CBCT in oral and maxillofacial surgery:an overview of published indications and clinical usage in United States academic centers and oral and maxillofacial surgery practices. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74:668-79.