Awareness and Attitude among Dental Professional towards CBCT

Abstract

Objectives: The present study was carried out to assess the awareness and knowledge of CBCT among practicing general dentists. Materials and methods: A 13 multiple choice questionnaire was given to practicing general dentists to answer. A total of 50 dentists participated in the survey (21 females and 29 males). Results: Among 50 dentists, about 82% (n=41) are aware of cone beam computed tomography used for dentomaxillofacial region and 18% (n=9) are not aware of cone beam computed tomography used for dentomaxillofacial region. out of 41 dentists about 48% got to know about CBCT through lectures and class , 12% through internet, 9.7% through journal, 17% through seminars, 7.3% during PG, 2.4% during trauma case referral and 2.4% through advertisement. Among 41 dentists about 39% attended workshops regarding CBCT and 61% did not attend any workshops. About 80.48% felt that lower radiation is the most advantage of CBCT over CT. About 87.8% answered that CBCT offers enhanced diagnosis at lower dose than CT and 7.32% contradicted this and 4.88% have no idea. About 14.63% felt that less radiation is the primary difference between CT and CBCT, 14.63% felt shape of the beam, 2.44% cost, and 2.44% quality and precision and 65.85% have no idea. About 70.73% reported that the radiation risk from CBCT is generally higher than conventional CT scans, 9.76% contradicted this and 19.51% have no idea. About 68.29% have referred their patients for CBCT while 31.71% have not referred. 2.44% guessed the cost to be less than Rs 500, 26.83% between Rs 500-1000, 17.07% above Rs. 1000 and 53.66% having no idea. About 48.78% reported they would choose CBCT for implant, 35% for implant and evaluation of cyst and tumors, 19.51% for all the mentioned cases. About 43.90% believed that CBCT would be used in the near future in all areas of dentistry, 7.32% believed that it will not be commonly used in routine practice and 12.2% have no idea. 39.02% thought that it is necessary for CBCT to be available at their speciality,56.1% did not think as necessary and 4.88% have no idea. Majority of the participants thought that clinical phase should include lectures on CBCT, 14.63% and 17.07% on pre clinical and doctoral phase respectively. Majority of the participants about 95.12% are satisfied with the use of CBCT while 4.88% are not satisfied. Conclusion: the present study shows better awareness of CBCT among dental practitioners and this study suggests that more knowledge should be gained on this emerging new technology for better diagnosis and treatment planning