ArticleOral radiology2024
Exposure and protection protocols of dentomaxillofacial imaging applied by paediatric dentists in Europe.
Article in Oral radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate exposure and protection practices regarding dentomaxillofacial imaging among pediatric dentists in Europe and determine the effect of different clinician specific characteristics on their implementation.
methodsA cross-sectional study involving an electronic questionnaire addressed to paediatric dentists, participating in a seminar on dental radiology organized by the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. Participants were asked to respond to questions regarding dentomaxillofacial imaging in terms of applied radiation dose, adoption of radiation protection techniques, and different patterns of radiographic studying and exchange between patients and colleagues. Data analysis was performed and distribution of responses was tested using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsA total of 151 paediatric dentists, 119 females and 32 males, with a mean chronological age of 42.8 years (s.e. 11.3 years), successfully completed the questionnaire (response rate = 82%). Regardless of the type of radiograph, majority of respondents (68%), reported that they perform the radiographs themselves, while 21% reported that they refer the patients. Half of the respondents (51%), indicated requesting a small (localized) field of view (FOV) when referring for a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with only a small proportion (11%) reporting a large (maxillofacial) FOV. Thyroid collars and optimizing exposure settings were the most commonly reported patient protection measures used. Lastly, paediatric dentists have adopted the latest technological capacities for the study of dental images.
conclusionsDentomaxillofacial imaging protection and exposure protocols used are common among paediatric dentists with none of their specific characteristics having a significant effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.