Evaluation of requirement of taking panoramic radiographs in children less than 6 years of age - A retrospective study.

Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of prescribing panoramic radiographs in children less than 6 years of age. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study was conducted in a dental institution in Chennai between December 2019 and January 2021. Details of all the children less than 6 years subjected to panoramic radiographs were collected. The reason for taking panoramic radiographs was also recorded. Chi-square tests were done to statistically analyze the data, and the significance level was set at 0.05. Results: Out of 2,847 children less than 6 years of age visiting the dental institution, 1.08% (31 children) were advised to take an orthopantomagram (OPG) during the study period. Early childhood caries (75% in males and 66.7% in females) was found to be the most common reason for taking panoramic radiographs followed by developmental disturbances (12.5% in males and 13.3% in females). Chi-square test showed statistical significance between males and females (P- value = 0.003 and 0.002) for the reasons for taking panoramic radiographs in children. Conclusion: Usage of radiographic techniques, especially panoramic radiographs should be limited for children under 6 years of age unless absolutely necessary.

Extraoral bite-wing radiographs: A universally accepted paradox.

BACKGROUND: The development of specialized panoramic radiograph machine software has spawned the introduction of an innovative and promising dental radiographic examination type: extraoral bite-wings. But does this unconventional type of imaging belong in the bite-wing family? Is there any relationship at all to the conventional bite-wing radiograph? OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is not to make a case for the diagnostic effectiveness of one system over the other; this is best left to further clinical evaluation. Instead, the authors intend to provide an outline of a few key and distinguishing elements of the intraoral bite-wing radiographic examination followed by those of the extraoral panoramic substitute and draw attention to the importance of reimagining the increasingly universal naming convention of this novel radiographic examination, the paradoxical "extraoral bite-wing radiograph", based on the fundamental principles of each of these imaging systems. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The accuracy of clinical and technical terminology in oral radiography is of paramount importance to both the profession and patients, especially when considering emerging technologies.

Oral and Maxillofacial Anatomy.

This article deals with identification and descriptions of intraoral and extraoral anatomy of the dental and maxillofacial structures. The anatomic landmarks are highlighted and described based on their radiographic appearance and their clinical significance is provided. Cone beam CT-based images are described in detail using the multiplanar reconstructions. The skull views are depicted via line diagrams in addition to their normal radiographic appearance to make identification of anatomic structures easier for clinicians. The authors cover most of the anatomic structures commonly noted via radiographs and their descriptions. This article serves as a clinician's guide to oral and maxillofacial radiographic anatomy.

Comparative adoption of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography machines across Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to assess the current adoption of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) machines across Australia. METHODS: Information regarding registered CBCT and PR machines was obtained from radiation regulators across Australia. The number of X-ray machines was correlated with the population size, the number of dentists, and the gross state product (GSP) per capita, to determine the best fitting regression model(s). RESULTS: In 2014, there were 232 CBCT and 1681 PR machines registered in Australia. Based on absolute counts, Queensland had the largest number of CBCT and PR machines whereas the Northern Territory had the smallest number. However, when based on accessibility in terms of the population size and the number of dentists, the Australian Capital Territory had the most CBCT machines and Western Australia had the most PR machines. The number of X-ray machines correlated strongly with both the population size and the number of dentists, but not with the GSP per capita. CONCLUSIONS: In 2014, the ratio of PR to CBCT machines was approximately 7:1. Projected increases in either the population size or the number of dentists could positively impact on the adoption of PR and CBCT machines in Australia.