Moreira-Souza L, de Oliveira RL, Nogueira-Reis F, Dantas CE, Freitas DQ

Language: English
References: 18
Page: 176-190
PDF size: 237.81 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to assess the use of digital dental radiology in Brazil, by focusing on the use of image receptors, imaging exams and digital image enhancement tools, also assessing the methods of professional image transfer. Questionnaires were distributed in person on dental meetings and digitally via messaging (WhatsApp^®) and mailings list. The sample of this cross-sectional study consisted of 478 questionnaires. Most participants were woman (n=315, 65.9%), with average age of 33.8‹9.2 years. Descriptive and frequency analysis was performed. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used (α=0.05). Most dentists worked at shared dental clinics (34.7%) and use digital image receptors (51.1%), but a representative percentage (48.9%) still exclusively use radiographic films. Photostimulable phosphor plate is the most used digital image receptor. Among extraoral exams, panoramic radiography (PAN) is the most used. Regarding dental specialties, oral radiologists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons mostly use cone-beam computed tomography (p‹0.001). Most dentists who use digital systems make use of digital image enhancement tools (87.8%), mainly contrast, zoom, brightness and measurements. The most common method of professional image transfer (professional-professional and professional-patiens) is by email, with few dentists using online app and social media (26%). Therefore, while most Brazilian dentists use digital imaging systems, a significant percentage still exclusively use radiographic films. The most extraoral imaging exams used is PAN. Regarding image enhancement tools, brightness and contrast adjustments, zoom and measurements are the most applied. Finally, dentists generally use email for professional image transfer.

REFERENCES

1. Wenzel A., Møystad A. Workflow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 2010; 68 (2): 106-14.

2. Moreira-Souza L., Michels M., Lagos de Melo L.P., Oliveira M.L., Asprino L., Freitas D.Q. Brightness and contrast adjustments influence the radiographic detection of soft tissue calcification. Oral Dis 2019; 00: 1-6.

3. Gaêta-Araujo H., Nascimento E.H.L., Brasil D.M., Gomes A.F., Freitas D.Q., De Oliveira-Santos C. Detection of Simulated Periapical Lesion in Intraoral Digital Radiography with Different Brightness and Contrast. Eur Endod J 2019; 4 (3): 133-8.

4. Snel R., Van De Maele E., Politis C., Jacobs R. Digital dental radiology in Belgium: A nationwide survey. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2018; 47 (8): 20180045.

5. Rovaris K., Vasconcelos K. de F., do Nascimento E.H.L., Oliveira M.L., Freitas D.Q., Haiter-Neto F. Brazilian young dental practitioners’ use and acceptance of digital radiographic examinations. Imaging Sci Dent 2016; 46: 239-44.

6. Berkhout W.E.R., Verheij J.G., Syriopoulos K., Li G., Sanderink G.C..H, van der Stelt P.F. Detection of proximal caries with high-resolution and standard resolution digital radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 204-10.

7. Brian J.N., Williamson G.F. Digital radiography in dentistry: a survey of Indiana dentists. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 18-23.

8. Costa E.D., Peyneau P.D., Ambrosano G.M.B., Oliveira M.L. Influence of cone beam CT volume orientation on alveolar bone measurements in patients with different facial profiles. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48 (6): 20180330.

9. Kullendorff B., Nilsson M. Diagnostic accuracy of direct digital dental radiography for the detection of periapical bone lesions. II. Effects on diagnostic accuracy after application of image processing. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 82 (5): 585-9.

10. Madarati A.A. Usage of image-enhancement tools when reading radiographs taken during root-canals treatments’ procedures. Eur Endod J 2020; 5: 95-104.

11. Krupinski E. Technology and perception in the 21st century reading room. J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3: 433-440.

12. Raitz R., Assunção J.A..N, Fenyo-Pereira M., Corrêa L., De Lima L.P. Assessment of using digital manipulation tools for diagnosing mandibular radiolucent lesions. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2012; 41: 203-10.

13. Abesi F., Nikafshar N., Haghanifar S,. Khafri S., Hamzeh M. Can the inversion filter improve the visibility of the mandibular incisive canal? Iran J Radiol 2016; 13: 4-7.

14. Scaf G., Morihisa O., Loffredo L.D.C.M. Comparison between inverted and unprocessed digitized radiographic imaging in periodontal bone loss measurements. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15: 492-4. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000600007ODOVTOS-International Journal of Dental Sciences ODOVTOS-Int. J. Dent. Sc. | No. 24-3: 176-190, 2022 I ISSN: 2215-3411. 190 Attribution (BY-NC) - (BY) You must give appropriate credit, provide

15. Freitas D.Q, Ramos-Perez F.M.M.,De-Azevedo S.L.V., Bóscolo F.N., AlmeidaS.M. Teaching of Oral Radiology in BrazilianDental Schools. JJ Dent Res 2014; 2: 1-5.

16. Madlum D.V., Gaêta-Araujo H., Brasil D.M,Lima C.A.S., Oliveira M.L., Haiter-Neto F.Influence of the file format and transmissionapp on the radiographic diagnosis ofcaries lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med OralPathol Oral Radiol 2020: S2212-4403(20):31390-0.

17. Miranda-Viana M., Madlum D.V., Oliveira-Santos N., Gaêta-Araujo H., Haiter-Neto F.,Oliveira M.L. Influence of the image fileformat of digital periapical radiographs onthe diagnosis of external and internal rootresorptions. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25 (8):4941-4948. Epub 2021 Jan 26.

18. Costa E.D., Martins L.A.C., Cral W.G., PeroniL.V., Freitas D.Q., Oliveira M.L. Assessmentof dentists’ behaviour on the use of patients’images. Eur J Dent Educ 2020; 24: 513-7.