Year : 2018

Volume : Volume 9

Issue : Issue 1

Address for correspondence :
Dr. Harleen Bali.
harleen_bali@yahoo.com

Abstract

Aim:  The aim and objective is to evaluate the level of awareness and attitude towards radiation hazards and safety practices among dental community in North India. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 150 dental practitioners in North India using online Google forms and by hand questionnaire distribution. Questions which were included, based on demographic data, the use of intraoral radiographic equipment, patient and operator protection measures; as well as general awareness regarding dental radiology. Results: Result showed out of 150 filled forms (online and by hand) received, 84 were female (56%) and 66 were males (44%). Majority i.e. 98 (65.3%) of the participants, belonged to the age group of 25-29 years. Post graduates dominated our study group. Our study had 74 out of 140 dentist license holders working as specialists in their filed while 69 did general practice. When asked about prescription of radiograph to a new adult patient 76 (50.7%) answered advising periapical radiographs only. The results were similar in case of their advising of periapical radiographs to paediatric patients. Of the 146 who filled the answer to maintenance of X ray equipment in their work place, 58 (39.7%) marked if required as the criteria for equipment maintenance.(out of 144), 74 (51.4%) didn’t know the kilo voltage of their intra-oral X-ray unit. Similar pattern for 146 participants was noticed in question on tube current; where majority were clueless. Position Indicating device (PID) available in the participant’s work place was of cylindrical shape as reported by 140 (93.3%) participants. Variation in exposure time was not known by 40 (26.7%), Of all participants, positioning device for X-ray image receptor placement was used by only 34 (23%) of the 148 that answered. Digital CCD sensor for image receptor is used by majority of participants i.e 82 (54.7%). Out of 150 participant 80 (53.3%) said they stood behind a protective wall during exposure. 102 (68%) had thyroid collar or lead apron at their work place. Dosimetry for self X-ray exposure evaluation was employed by 100 (67.6%) of 148 participants only. Majority, 81 (54%) answered thyroid as the most important organ in radiation protection in dental radiology. 123 (82%) know that full-mouth causes more radiation exposure than one Panoramic radiograph. 105 (70%) are against X-ray exposure of a pregnant woman for a periapical radiograph, while 45 (30%) say it is not harmful. For question where it stated that the average exposure during an Intra oral periapical radiograph was less as compared to daily background radiation, 65 (43.3%) agreed. 96 (64%) of all participants agreed that radiation exposure following an Intra oral periapical radiograph (IOPAR) was harmless. Conclusions: The implementation of standards of quality care for radiography and radiation protection could be improved among North Indian dentists. An elaborate educational programme in dental radiography is a prerequisite. Furthermore, a need to make the knowledge of basic radiography equipment a must before installation, in order to make the most out of it.

Keywords: Awareness, radiation protection, dentistry.