A comparison between bitewing radiographs taken with rectangular and circular collimators in UK military dental practices: a retrospective study.
OBJECTIVE
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.
Defence Dental Services, Aldershot, UK.
L A
LA
Parrott
S Y
SY
Ng
D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000517:prevention & control; D004867:Equipment Design; D005374:Filtration / Q000295:instrumentation; D006801:Humans; D008885:Military Dentistry; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D016300:Radiography, Bitewing / Q000295:instrumentation*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012542:Scattering, Radiation
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1979 Nov;48(5):479-83
290948
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Mar;93(3):321-7
11925542
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001 May;30(3):166-71
11420630
J Dent Educ. 1983 Dec;47(12):771-3
6582105
J Dent. 1990 Aug;18(4):171-84
2212199
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997 Jul;84(1):101-9
9247960
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003 Jul;32(4):242-6
13679355
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005 May;99(5):622-7
15829888
Int Dent J. 1989 Jun;39(2):147-8
2753569
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000 Mar;29(2):97-102
10808223
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1992 Feb;21(1):21-5
1397446
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000 Jan;29(1):20-7
10654032
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007 May;36(4):224-8
17536090
J Am Dent Assoc. 1987 Mar;114(3):344-7
3470357
J Dent. 2003 Mar;31(3):197-203
12726704
Br J Radiol. 1995 Dec;68(816):1304-7
8777590
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999 Jan;28(1):6-12
10202472
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1991 Aug;20(3):152-4
1807999
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989 Oct;68(4):482-7
2797745
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Sep;139(9):1237-43
18762634
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Apr;93(4):496-505
12029291
Tandlaegebladet. 1985 Sep;89(17):633-7
3868173
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995 Apr;79(4):532-5
7614218
Int J Comput Dent. 2006 Jan;9(1):61-8
16608054
Prim Dent Care. 2004 Jul;11(3):81-6
15242564
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991 Apr;71(4):509-13
2052340