OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine any increase in the incidence of cone cut errors that adversely affected diagnostic yield resulting in more retakes using rectangular collimation with film holders in bitewing radiography. Comparisons were also made with other positioning errors that occurred when bitewings were taken with circular collimation, with and without film holders. METHODS: A preliminary questionnaire was used to determine the year that rectangular collimation was adopted by military dental practice. 3 time-framed subsets, each of 1000 bitewing radiographs, were identified: subset 1, films taken with circular collimators without film holders; subset 2, films taken with circular collimators with film holders; and subset 3, films taken with rectangular collimators with film holders. Each subset was assessed for positioning errors of cone cut, horizontal overlap, vertical distortion and film centring. The χ(2) test was used to test significant differences amongst the three subsets. RESULTS: The use of film holders with circular collimation significantly reduced the incidence of cone cut errors from 21.7% to 3.3%. There was an increase in the incidence of cone cut errors from 3.3% to 20.9% when rectangular collimation was used, but the actual number considered "rejects" was very small, only 0.1% (1 in 1000 films) in subset 2 and 0.3% (3 of 1000 films) in subset 3, when assessed for diagnostic yield. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that rectangular collimation did not significantly affect the diagnostic yield of bitewing radiographs despite the presence of cone cut. Therefore, all practitioners should adopt rectangular collimation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine any increase in the incidence of cone cut errors that adversely affected diagnostic yield resulting in more retakes using rectangular collimation with film holders in bitewing radiography. Comparisons were also made with other positioning errors that occurred when bitewings were taken with circular collimation, with and without film holders. METHODS: A preliminary questionnaire was used to determine the year that rectangular collimation was adopted by military dental practice. 3 time-framed subsets, each of 1000 bitewing radiographs, were identified: subset 1, films taken with circular collimators without film holders; subset 2, films taken with circular collimators with film holders; and subset 3, films taken with rectangular collimators with film holders. Each subset was assessed for positioning errors of cone cut, horizontal overlap, vertical distortion and film centring. The χ(2) test was used to test significant differences amongst the three subsets. RESULTS: The use of film holders with circular collimation significantly reduced the incidence of cone cut errors from 21.7% to 3.3%. There was an increase in the incidence of cone cut errors from 3.3% to 20.9% when rectangular collimation was used, but the actual number considered "rejects" was very small, only 0.1% (1 in 1000 films) in subset 2 and 0.3% (3 of 1000 films) in subset 3, when assessed for diagnostic yield. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that rectangular collimation did not significantly affect the diagnostic yield of bitewing radiographs despite the presence of cone cut. Therefore, all practitioners should adopt rectangular collimation.