RESUMO
PURPOSE: The exposure of patients to ionizing radiation used in dentistry comes with a subtle risk of a stochastic effect, but there is tremendous benefit obtained from radiographic investigation for diagnosis, management, and monitoring of the treatment offered. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the viewpoint of the population concerning the prescriptions and practices in dentistry associated with dental radiographs and the safe use of ionizing radiation in dental clinics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Validated and pretested structured self-administered questionnaires with 11 items were used. An electronic version of the questionnaire was created using Google Forms and distributed online through social media outlets. A total of 437 patients completed the questionnaire which contains questions about their demographic data and their perception of the practice of dentistry regarding hazard from dental radiographs. The collected data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Up to 88.6% of the study participants underwent dental radiography for various dental treatments. A majority of them relied on the dentist for the type of requested radiograph, 40% of them reported that dentist never explained the hazards associated with radiography. More than half of the participants (55%) never or hardly ever asked about safety measures before undergoing radiography. Most of the participants approved of radiography and never refrained. CONCLUSION: There is a spectrum of perceptions by the population. Continuous patient education is recommended to enhance awareness regarding this matter. Community perception assists in correcting wrong beliefs and ensuring improvement.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the differing contrast resolution of various LCD monitors affects the reliability or accuracy of measurements of proposed implant sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous areas of human dry skulls were marked with radiopaque markers in order to standardize the plane of the transverse cross-sections of the ridges and path of measurements. The skulls were imaged by a CBCT device and the images stored in proprietary format on the workstation. The data sets were then transferred, with the proprietary reformatting software, to two different laptops using CDs. Transverse cross-sectional images of the ridges were reformatted on all three computers and ridge dimensions were recorded using the linear measurement tool of the proprietary software. Ridge dimensions were recorded directly from the three different monitors by two observers and compared to measurements recorded directly from the bone. The measurement errors and intra- and inter-examiner reliability were calculated for each monitor and compared with each other. RESULTS: Intra- and inter-examiner reliability scores for the measurements recorded from all three devices were very high and ranged between 0.993-0.999. The mean of the absolute errors was 0.55 mm for the workstation, 0.61 mm for laptop 1 and 0.68 mm for laptop 2. The absolute errors were statistically significant for all three monitors (p-value < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the absolute errors obtained from the three monitors. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in the reliability or accuracy of measurements of implant site dimensions were obtained using color LCD monitors with different contrast resolution capabilities.