Evaluation of the Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of Dental Students and General Dental Practitioners About Digital Radiography

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate theknowledge, attitudes and beliefs of dental students,general dental practitioners and academicians about intraoral digital radiography.For this purpose a questionnaire was administered to dental students, general dental practitioners and academicians investigating their understanding of the principles of digital radiography,their decision criteria to its use, and on the suitability of the topic in the undergradute dental curriculum. Demographic, clinical and electronic technology variables were recorded. Responsers wereranked on a six- point confidence scale with regardto their preference of digital radiography.Responses of three different groups were analysedusing descriptive statistics and one-way analysis ofvariance.A total of two hundred ninety two dentistsincluding 103 academicians 35% , 94 students 33% and 95 private dentsists 32% replied thequestionnaire. Eighty three private dentists 87% ,91 students 97% and 97 academicians 94% chose digital radiography DR . Gender, age andgraduation year were not significant factors indetermining their decision, whereas being an academician, student or private dentist was. The availability of computer technology was the most important variable in choosing DR 93% followed by timesaving 97% , avoidance of chemical use 90% andarchiving ability 88% , respectively. The reasonsfor not choosing DR were its expensiveness 56% ,satisfaction with conventional radiography 50% and deficient knowledge about DR 50% . Seventy eight percent of dentists agreed that DR should be included in dental curriculum. According to the results obtained it may be possible to conclude that being an academician, student or private dentist was the most significant factor in choosing digital radiography.

Keywords

• dental education, digital radiography, dental, curriculum

DİŞHEKİMLERİ VE DİŞHEKİMLİĞİ ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN DİJİTAL RADYOGRAFİ HAKKINDAKİ BİLGİ, TUTUM VE DAVRANIŞLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı dişhekimliği öğrencilerinin, serbest dişhekimlerinin ve akademisyenlerin intraoral dijital radyografi DR bilgilerini,tercih nedenlerini ve tutumlarını değerlendirmektir. Dişhekimliği öğrencilerinin, serbest dişhekimlerinin ve akademisyenlerin dijital radyografi prensipleri hakkındaki bilgilerini, tercih nedenlerini vedişhekimliği müfredatında yer alması konusundakifikirlerini saptamayı hedefleyen bir ankethazırlandı. Dişhekimlerinin demografik bilgileri ileklinik ve elektronik donanımları sorgulandı.Ankete katılanların dijital radyografiyi tercih etmekriterleri 6-dereceli bir skala yardımıyladeğerlendirildi. Ankete alınan yanıtlar tanımlayıcıistatistik analizleri ve tek yönlü varyans analizi ilekarşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirildi.Ankete 103 akademisyen %35 , 95 serbesthekim %33 , 94 öğrenci %32 olmak üzeretoplam 292 dişhekimi yanıt verdi. Bunlardan 83serbest hekim %87 , 91 öğrenci %97 , ve 97akademisyen %94 dijital radyografiyi konvansiyonel filme tercih edebileceklerini belirtti. Yaş, cinsiyet ve mezuniyet yılı DR tercihini etkilemezken p>0,05 , öğrenci, akademisyen veya serbest hekimolmanın bu tercihte anlamlı rolü olduğu bulundu p

Keywords

• dental eğitim, dijitalradyografi, dental, müfredat

References

1. Wolfgang L. The dental digital radiograph. NY State Dent J 2001; 67: 38–41.
2. Lozano AM, Forner L, Liena C. In vitro comparison of root-canal measurements with con- ventional and digital radiology. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 542–50.
3. Lozano AM, Oliverio AE, Almeida SM, Haiter CFS, Neto FH. Clinical study of the sesitivity and dynamic range of three digital systems, e speed film and digitized film. Braz Dent J 2001; 12: 191–5.
4. Brettle DS, Workman A, Ellwood RP, Launders JH, Horner K, Daves RM. The imaging performance of a storage phosphor system for dental radiography. Br J Radiol 1996; 69: 256–61.
5. Yoshiura K, Welander U, Shi XQ, Li G, Kawazu T, Tatsumi M, Okamura K, McDavid WD, Kanda S. Conventional and predicted perceptibility curves for contrast-enhanced direct digital intraoral radiographs. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2001; 30: 219–25.
6. Yoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T, Tatsumi M, Tokumori K, Tanaka T, Kanda S. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 123–9.
7. Scarfe WC, Potter BJ, Farman AG. Effects of instruction on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of dental students towards digital radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 1996; 25: 103–8.
8. Huysmans MC, Hintze H, Wenzel A. Effect of exposure time on in vitro caries diagnosis using the digora system. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 15–20.

9. Wenzel A. Matters to consider when imple- menting direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int J Comput Dent 1999; 2: 269–90.
10. Wenzel A, Gröndahl H-G. Direct digital radiography in the dental office. Int Dent J 1995; 45: 27–34.
11. Versteeg CH, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF. Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in cli- nical dentistry. J Dent 1997; 25: 215–24.
12. Mol A. Image processing tools for dental applications. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 27–34.
13. Miles DA, Langlais RP, Parks ET. Digital X-rays are here; why aren’t you using them? J Calif Dent Assoc 1999; 27: 926–34.
14. Wenzel A, Mİystad A. Experience of nor- wegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2001; 30: 203–08.
15. Wenzel A, Mİystad A. Decision criteria and characteristics of norwegian general dental prac- titioners selecting digital radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2001; 30: 197–02.
16. Miles A, Razzano MR. The future of digital imaging in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 427–38.