B S Chong1, J Miller1, S Sidhu1. 1. Adult Oral Health, Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Turner Street, London, E1 2AD.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the quality of radiographs accompanying endodontic referrals, from general dental practitioners, to a health authority clinic. METHODS: A total of 200 conventional film and digital radiographs accompanying referrals were assessed and rated as 'excellent', 'diagnostically acceptable' or 'unacceptable' according to the National Radiographic Protection Board (NRPB) guidelines. Statistical analyses of the results included inter- and intra-observer agreement to achieve a kappa score and the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Out of the 200 radiographs assessed, 38 (19%) were conventional film and 162 (81%) were digital. Of the conventional film radiographs, 55% were rated 'excellent' and 37% were 'diagnostically acceptable', whilst 27% of digital radiographs were rated 'excellent' and 40% were 'diagnostically acceptable'. In the 'unacceptable' category, 33% were digital and 8% were conventional film radiographs (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of digital radiographs was significantly lower compared with conventional film radiographs. The percentage of 'unacceptable' digital radiographs was above the target according to the NRPB guidelines. Hence, there is a need for improvement in quality to avoid repeat radiographs and unnecessary ionising radiation exposure. Instead of hard, printed copies, digital radiographs accompanying referrals should, within the parameters of information governance, be supplied electronically so that they may be optimised, if necessary, for better diagnostic value.
AIM: To assess the quality of radiographs accompanying endodontic referrals, from general dental practitioners, to a health authority clinic. METHODS: A total of 200 conventional film and digital radiographs accompanying referrals were assessed and rated as 'excellent', 'diagnostically acceptable' or 'unacceptable' according to the National Radiographic Protection Board (NRPB) guidelines. Statistical analyses of the results included inter- and intra-observer agreement to achieve a kappa score and the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Out of the 200 radiographs assessed, 38 (19%) were conventional film and 162 (81%) were digital. Of the conventional film radiographs, 55% were rated 'excellent' and 37% were 'diagnostically acceptable', whilst 27% of digital radiographs were rated 'excellent' and 40% were 'diagnostically acceptable'. In the 'unacceptable' category, 33% were digital and 8% were conventional film radiographs (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of digital radiographs was significantly lower compared with conventional film radiographs. The percentage of 'unacceptable' digital radiographs was above the target according to the NRPB guidelines. Hence, there is a need for improvement in quality to avoid repeat radiographs and unnecessary ionising radiation exposure. Instead of hard, printed copies, digital radiographs accompanying referrals should, within the parameters of information governance, be supplied electronically so that they may be optimised, if necessary, for better diagnostic value.