• Users Online: 99
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 49-56

Awareness and practice of ethics and guidelines with cone-beam computed tomography prescription in orthodontics


1 Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
2 Professor in Ophthalmology and Faculty, Centre for Ethics, Yenepoya (Deemed to be University), Mangalore, Karnataka, India
3 Prof., Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
4 Orthodontic Resident, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yenepoya Dental College, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shahista Parveen
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jios.jios_134_18

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is now being widely used in orthodontic practice. On the one hand, there is an increasing need of CBCT for diagnosis and research, and on the other hand, there is a broad concern for the exposure to radiation. Prescribing CBCT scan requires judicious clinical judgment to maximize the benefits and minimize the harm. The best way to reduce unnecessary ionizing radiation from CBCT is to follow recommended guidelines and ethical principles. This study was undertaken to determine if ethical principles are followed when prescribing CBCT scans. This study also analyzed the awareness of guidelines for the use of CBCT in orthodontics. Materials and Methods: Web-based questionnaire study was carried out to assess awareness and practice of ethics and guidelines for CBCT prescription after approval from the University Ethics Committee. Voluntariness, privacy, and confidentiality were ensured through informed consent. 101 orthodontists and 103 orthodontic residents participated in the survey. Responses were anonymous and were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean scores were as follows (1) principle of autonomy (0.585 ± 0.25), (2) principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence (0.405 ± 0.17), and (3) principle of justice (0.36 ± 0.22). There is no statistical difference for the scores of ethical principles among orthodontists and orthodontic residents (P > 0.05) except for the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence (P < 0.05). Only 100 respondents (49 orthodontists and 51 Orthodontic residents) were aware of guidelines for the use of CBCT in orthodontics. Conclusion: This study gives an insight into the practice of ethics and guidelines whenever CBCT scan is indicated in orthodontics.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed239    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded79    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal