OBJECTIVES: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was introduced to Norwegian dental clinics in 2007. The aim of the study was to investigate how dental clinics use this imaging modality, including factors related to workflow and image quality, and to evaluate dentists' opinions on and experiences of using it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based 59-item questionnaire regarding the clinical use of CBCT was sent to all 39 CBCT clinics in Norway. RESULTS: Twenty-nine clinics (74%) responded. Most respondents (93%) were from clinics with more than one dentist and 83% had at least one specialist. All clinics had digital intraoral x-ray receptors and all but one had panoramic imaging. The most common indications for CBCT were implant treatment planning (34% of all clinics) and localization of impacted teeth (43% of specialist clinics). Seventy-two per cent of clinics reported an average of four or fewer CBCT examinations each week and 83% of respondents were subjectively satisfied with the image quality. The most commonly used enhancement functions were contrast (97%), brightness (90%) and zoom (86%). CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian CBCT clinics surveyed were fully digitized and had multiple dentists. Periodontists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons were the most frequent specialties represented in the clinics. Clinics with only dental specialists performed more CBCT examinations/week than clinics with general practitioners or both general practitioners and specialists. The most common indications for CBCT examinations were related to treatment planning. This study found some challenges related to image quality and communication within the radiological team.
OBJECTIVES: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was introduced to Norwegian dental clinics in 2007. The aim of the study was to investigate how dental clinics use this imaging modality, including factors related to workflow and image quality, and to evaluate dentists' opinions on and experiences of using it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based 59-item questionnaire regarding the clinical use of CBCT was sent to all 39 CBCT clinics in Norway. RESULTS: Twenty-nine clinics (74%) responded. Most respondents (93%) were from clinics with more than one dentist and 83% had at least one specialist. All clinics had digital intraoral x-ray receptors and all but one had panoramic imaging. The most common indications for CBCT were implant treatment planning (34% of all clinics) and localization of impacted teeth (43% of specialist clinics). Seventy-two per cent of clinics reported an average of four or fewer CBCT examinations each week and 83% of respondents were subjectively satisfied with the image quality. The most commonly used enhancement functions were contrast (97%), brightness (90%) and zoom (86%). CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian CBCT clinics surveyed were fully digitized and had multiple dentists. Periodontists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons were the most frequent specialties represented in the clinics. Clinics with only dental specialists performed more CBCT examinations/week than clinics with general practitioners or both general practitioners and specialists. The most common indications for CBCT examinations were related to treatment planning. This study found some challenges related to image quality and communication within the radiological team.
Authors: Sebastian Tschauner; Robert Marterer; Eszter Nagy; Georg Apfaltrer; Michael Riccabona; Georg Singer; Georg Stücklschweiger; Helmuth Guss; Erich Sorantin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240