ABSTRACT
Radiographs are an important tool in maximizing oral health care. During initial years, the film based radiographic images were used, as technological advancements progressed, digital radiographic imaging has become an indispensable tool in diagnosis. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the practice of digital and conventional radiographs, and radiation safety among dental practitioners. METHODSA questionnaire descriptive study was conducted, including general dental practitioners and dental specialists in Kanchipuram district. The questionnaire comprised of 12 questions that were distributed through Google forms, email and responses were collected. The questions were based on their preference about digital or conventional radiographs, reason for their preference, satisfaction with diagnostic quality, patient compliance, and their radiation protection practice. RESULTSA total of 200 dental practitioners in Kanchipuram district was given questionnaires. All of them answered the questionnaire. 148 were males and 52 were females. The age distribution was between 26 - 33 years. 65 % of the practitioners answered that they use digital radiographs often owing to less time consumption and ease of storage, 90 % of them answered that their diagnostic quality is improved by using digital radiographs, of which 51 % use radiation protection and 39 % of their patients use radiation protection during exposure. CONCLUSIONSThis era is moving towards digital radiography, among the ones who are using it, most of them are satisfied with it. Attitude towards radiation protection and hazards has to be improved amongst dental practitioners. The use of digital radiography is increasing among dental practitioners due to its less radiation exposure, improved diagnostic quality, ease of access and as it is less time consuming. The need for availability of standard improved quality of care equally raises the point for cost effective methods for the developing technologies.
ABSTRACT
Application of arch bar is considered as a gold standard for intermaxillary fixation (IMF) in the management of mandibular fractures. Both the application and removal of arch bars can inflict pain for patients who require IMF. For removal of the arch bars, local anaesthesia (local infiltration or conduction block) is often indicated. The study aimed at comparing and validating the efficacy of topical lidocaine spray and benzocaine gel in patients undergoing removal of arch bars. METHODS30 subjects were included in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Maxillary arch was chosen as the test site. 10 patients (Group A) were anaesthetized in the upper gingiva with 15 % lidocaine spray and remaining 10 patients (Group B) were anaesthetized with 20 % benzocaine gel, following which removal of arch bar was done. 10 patients were included in the control group (Group C) where 2 % lignocaine infiltration was offered only on request. Visual analog scale and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale was used to measure the pain perceived by the patient during the procedure. RESULTSThe mean and standard deviation of the pain scores of Group A was 2.5 ± 0.70, Group B was 2.7 ± 0.67 and Control group was 5.5 ± 0.85. Both the test groups had a significant pain reduction when compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONSTopical application of both 15 % lidocaine spray and 20 % benzocaine gel provided equally efficient analgesia and can be useful alternatives to conventional local anaesthetic infiltration during arch bar removal.