4.3 Article

PREDOCTORAL AND POSTDOCTORAL EDUCATION ON CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 310-316

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.05.002

关键词

CBCT; Cone-beam CT; Dental education; Radiation protection

资金

  1. American Academy of Implant Dentistry Foundation
  2. Nobel Biocare [20000-02124100-12100-64050-AAIDF00005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives As the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dentistry continues to grow, questions related to appropriate radiation safety, training, and interpretation arise. Recognizing this need, the American Dental Association published an advisory statement for the safe use of CBCT in dentistry and recommended that guidelines for appropriate training be established. The purpose of this study was to assess radiation safety concerns related to CBCT and identify voids in current education on CBCT for the predoctoral dental curriculum and continuing dental education. Methods A survey was mailed to general practitioners, oral surgeons, and periodontists in the Georgia Dental Association (n = 415). Results One hundred twenty-one surveys were received for a response rate of 29%. Sixty-eight percent of practitioners reported using CBCT, with 89% having used it for over 2 years. Few (12.4%) had experience with CBCT in dental school. Interest in continuing dental education on CBCTwas reported at 59.8% and 43.6% for current users and nonusers of CBCT, respectively. Approximately 50% reported using precautionary radiation safety measures, and the methods used were varied. Conclusions Although a higher survey return rate would allow for stronger evidence, this project identified some areas of education voids including radiation safety and the factors that contribute to patient dose; CBCT basics including instruction on the limitations of CBCT; CBCT anatomy and pathology with additional time dedicated to the paranasal sinuses; and interpretation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据