Advertisement

Comparison of technical errors in pediatric bitewing radiographs acquired with round vs rectangular collimation

Published:September 14, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.09.002

      Objective

      To compare technical errors in bitewing radiographs acquired with round vs rectangular collimation in a hospital-based pediatric dentistry training program.

      Study Design

      A retrospective chart review was conducted of 176 digital bitewing radiographs exposed with round collimation and 106 exposed with rectangular collimation. The number of re-exposures was calculated, and errors in central ray entry (CRE; “cone cuts”), horizontal and vertical positioning, and angulation were measured.

      Results

      There were no greater re-exposures but significantly more CRE errors with rectangular collimation (21.7%; n = 23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9%-30.0%) than with round collimation (3.4%; n = 6; 95% CI, 0.7%-6.1%). CRE error location, horizontal positioning errors, and size of horizontal overlapped contacts were statistically different but not clinically important.

      Conclusions

      Use of rectangular collimation resulted in increased CRE errors but no other clinically significant problems. This technique should be used to reduce radiation exposure to patients.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
        Radiation protection in dentistry and oral & maxillofacial imaging.
        National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD2019 (NCRP Report No. 177)
        • Lurie AG
        • Kantor ML.
        Contemporary radiation protection in dentistry: recommendations of National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 177.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151 (.e3): 716-719
        • American Dental Association, Council on Scientific Affairs
        Dental radiographic examinations: recommendations for patient selection and limiting radiation exposure.
        U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD2012
        • Law CS
        • Douglass JM
        • Farman AG
        • et al.
        The Image Gently in Dentistry Campaign: partnering with parents to promote the responsible use of x-rays in pediatric dentistry.
        Pediatr Dent. 2014; 36: 458-459
        • Farman AG.
        Image gently: enhancing radiation protection during pediatric imaging.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014; 117: 657-658
      1. American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Prescribing dental radiographs for infants, children, adolescents, and individuals with special health care needs.
        The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Chicago, IL2020: 248-251
        • Hart G
        • Dugdale M.
        Radiation protection in dental X-ray surgeries – still rooms for improvement.
        Br Dent J. 2013; 214: E16
        • Taylor GK
        • Macpherson LM.
        An investigation into the use of bitewing radiography in children in Greater Glasgow.
        Br Dent J. 2004; 196 (discussion 541): 563-568
        • Platin E
        • Janhom A
        • Tyndall D.
        A quantitative analysis of dental radiography quality assurance practices among North Carolina dentists.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 86: 115-120
        • Nakfoor CA
        • Brooks SL.
        Compliance of Michigan dentists with radiographic safety recommendations.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992; 73: 510-513
        • Campbell RE
        • Wilson S
        • Zhang Y
        • Scarfe WC.
        A survey on radiation exposure reduction methods including rectangular collimation for intraoral radiography by pediatric dentists in the United States.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151: 287-296
        • Benn DK
        • Vig PS.
        Estimation of x-ray radiation related cancers in US dental offices: is it worth the risk?.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2021; (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33741287)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2021.01.027
        • Holt VP
        • Earp DP.
        Rectangular collimation.
        Prim Dent Care. 2000; 7: 34
        • Tugnait A
        • Clerehugh V
        • Hirschmann PN.
        Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental practice: a survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales.
        J Dent. 2003; 31: 197-203
        • Flygare L
        • Öhman A
        • Kull L.
        Letter to the editor concerning Parrott LA, Ng SY. A comparison between bitewing radiographs taken with rectangular and circular collimators in UK military dental practices: a retrospective study published in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2001;40:102-109).
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40: 262-263
        • Parks ET.
        Errors generated with the use of rectangular collimation.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 71: 509-513
        • Parrott LA
        • Ng SY.
        A comparison between bitewing radiographs taken with rectangular and circular collimators in UK military dental practices: a retrospective study.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40: 102-109
        • Peterson CA
        • Mauriello SM
        • Overman VP
        • Platin E
        • Tangen CM.
        Effects of beam collimation on image quality.
        J Dent Hyg. 1997; 71: 61-70
        • Chau AC
        • Li TK
        • Wong J.
        A randomized double blinded study to assess the efficacy of a laser-guided collimator on dental radiography training.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35: 200-204
        • Goren AD
        • Bonvento MJ
        • Fernandez TJ
        • et al.
        Evaluation of radiation exposure with Tru-Align intraoral rectangular collimation system using OSL dosimeters.
        N Y State Dent J. 2011; 77: 24-27
        • Zhang W
        • Huynh C
        • Jadhav A
        • et al.
        Comparison of efficiency and image quality of photostimulable phosphor plate and charge-coupled device receptors in dental radiography.
        J Dent Educ. 2019; 83: 1205-1212
        • Ludlow JB
        • Davies-Ludlow LE
        • White SC.
        Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139: 1237-1243
        • Horton PS
        • Sippy FH
        • Nelson JF
        • Kohout FJ
        • Kienzle GC.
        A comparison of rectangular and cylindrical collimation for intraoral radiographs.
        J Dent Educ. 1983; 47: 771-773
        • Johnson KB
        • Ludlow JB
        • Mauriello SM
        • Platin E.
        Reducing the risk of intraoral radiographic imaging with collimation and thyroid shielding.
        Gen Dent. 2014; 62: 34-40
        • Thornley PH
        • Stewardson DA
        • Rout PG
        • Burke FJ.
        Rectangular collimation and radiographic efficacy in eight general dental practices in the West Midlands.
        Prim Dent Care. 2004; 11: 81-86
        • Johnson KB
        • Ludlow JB.
        Intraoral radiographs: a comparison of dose and risk reduction with collimation and thyroid shielding.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151: 726-734
        • Udupa H
        • Mah P
        • Dove SB
        • McDavid WD.
        Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013; 116: 774-783
        • Ackerman JL
        • Proffit WR
        • Sarver DM
        • Ackerman MB
        • Kean MR.
        Pitch, roll, and yaw: describing the spatial orientation of dentofacial traits.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 305-310
        • Mallya SM
        • Lam EWN.
        White and Pharoah's Oral Radiology.
        8th ed. Elsevier, St. Louis, MO2019
        • Koo TK
        • Li MY.
        A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research.
        J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-163
        • Koo TK
        • Li MY.
        A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research [published erratum appears in J Chiropr Med. 2017;16:346].
        J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-163
        • Johnson KB
        • Mauriello SM
        • Ludlow JB
        • Platin E.
        Technical performance of universal and enhanced intraoral imaging rectangular collimators.
        J Dent Hyg. 2015; 89: 238-246
        • Mauriello SM
        • Tang Q
        • Johnson KB
        • Hadgraft HH
        • Platin E.
        A comparison of technique errors using two radiographic intra-oral receptor-holding devices.
        J Dent Hyg. 2015; 89: 384-389
        • Zhang W
        • Abramovitch K
        • Thames W
        • Leon IL
        • Colosi DC
        • Goren AD.
        Comparison of the efficacy and technical accuracy of different rectangular collimators for intraoral radiography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: e22-e28
        • Van Acker JWG
        • Pauwels NS
        • Cauwels R
        • Rajasekharan S.
        Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review.
        Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020; 21: 463-508
        • Dauer LT
        • Branets I
        • Stabulas-Savage J
        • et al.
        Optimising radiographic bitewing examination to adult and juvenile patients through the use of anthropomorphic phantoms.
        Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2014; 158: 51-58
        • Yepes JF.
        Radiation safety and protection in pediatric dentistry: rectangular collimation.
        J Indiana Dent Assoc. 2016; 95: 24-27