Evaluation of Awareness of General Dentists and Orthodontists in Isfahan about Applications of CBCT in Orthodontic Therapy
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Dental Implants Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3 Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
10.48305/v0i0.1592
Abstract
Introduction: Currently, CBCT is a relatively new oral and dental imaging technique with a variety of capabilities and applications for the diagnosis and follow-up of orodental problems. The use of CBCT in orthodontics has many advantages, basically due to the relative superiority of 3D radiography over the 2D technique. The aim of this study was to evaluate awareness of general dentists and orthodontists in Isfahan about the applications of CBCT in orthodontic therapy in 2017.
Methods and Materials: This descriptive–analytical study was carried out on 104 general dentists and 33 orthodontists working in Isfahan, who were selected using simple random sampling technique. A questionnaire, consisting of 13 questions on the awareness of general dentists and orthodontists in Isfahan about the applications of CBCT in orthodontic therapy, was designed and distributed among them. Based on the total score, dentist’s awareness was categorized as poor, moderate and good. Data were analyzed with SPSS 22, using t-test to compare awareness and years of practice, chi-squared test to analyze the effect of gender and degree (general practitioner or specialist) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient to evaluate the correlation between years of practice and awareness. In addition, two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of sex and educational degree on awareness.
Results: Among 104 general dentists and 33 orthodontists, the mean awareness score of orthodontists was 28.66, classified as a good level of awareness; the general dentists scored a mean of 27.83, classified as moderate level of awareness. There was no significant difference between the two groups of subjects. There was no significant difference in the mean scores of awareness between the two genders.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the levels of awareness about applications of CBCT in orthodontic therapy in general dentists and orthodontists were moderate and good, respectively.
Key words: Cone- beam computed tomography, Orthodontics, Awareness.
Methods and Materials: This descriptive–analytical study was carried out on 104 general dentists and 33 orthodontists working in Isfahan, who were selected using simple random sampling technique. A questionnaire, consisting of 13 questions on the awareness of general dentists and orthodontists in Isfahan about the applications of CBCT in orthodontic therapy, was designed and distributed among them. Based on the total score, dentist’s awareness was categorized as poor, moderate and good. Data were analyzed with SPSS 22, using t-test to compare awareness and years of practice, chi-squared test to analyze the effect of gender and degree (general practitioner or specialist) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient to evaluate the correlation between years of practice and awareness. In addition, two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of sex and educational degree on awareness.
Results: Among 104 general dentists and 33 orthodontists, the mean awareness score of orthodontists was 28.66, classified as a good level of awareness; the general dentists scored a mean of 27.83, classified as moderate level of awareness. There was no significant difference between the two groups of subjects. There was no significant difference in the mean scores of awareness between the two genders.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the levels of awareness about applications of CBCT in orthodontic therapy in general dentists and orthodontists were moderate and good, respectively.
Key words: Cone- beam computed tomography, Orthodontics, Awareness.
1. Okano T, Sur J. Radition dose and protection in dentistry. Japanese Dent Sci Rev 2010; 46(2): 112-21.
2. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. p. 210-11.
3. Dölekoğlu S, Fişekçioğlu E, İlgüy M, İlgüy D. The usage of digital radiography and cone beam computed tomography among Turkish dentists. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40(6): 379-84.
4. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(2): 267-71.
5. Kayipmaz S, Sezgin ÖS, Saricaoğlu ST, Çan G. An in vitro comparison of diagnostic abilities of conventional radiography, storage phosphor, and cone beam computed tomography to determine occlusal and approximal caries. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80(2): 478-82.
6. Agrawal JM, Agrawal MS, Nanjannawar LG, Parushetti AD. CBCT in orthodontics: the wave of future. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14(1): 153-7.
7. Lund H, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Cone beam computed tomography for assessment of root length and marginal bone level during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2010; 80(3): 466-73.
8. Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44(1): 20140282.
9. Dula K, Bornstein MM, Buser D, Dagassan-Berndt D, Ettlin DA, Filippi A, et al. SADMFR guidelines for the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/ Digital Volume Tomography. Swiss Dent J 2014; 124(11): 1169-83.
10. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40(1): 24-34.
11. Mah JK, Huang JC, Choo H. Practical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141(Suppl 3): 7S-13S.
12. Haney E, Gansky SA, Lee JS, Johnson E, Maki K, Miller AJ, et al. Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137(5): 590-7.
13. van Vlijmen OJ, Kuijpers MA, Berge SJ, Schols JG, Maal TJ, Breuning H, et al. Evidence supporting the use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143(3): 241-52.
14. Haghnegahdar A, Ghapanchi J, Saberi E. Knowledge of Iranian dentists about cone beam computed tomography. A questionnaire study. J Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Pathology and Surgery 2017; 5(4): 11-6.
)