European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 141–146 | Cite as

Quality of bitewing radiographs in children in relation to the type of film holder used

Original Scientific Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To assess the frequency of use with young uncooperative children of the bitewing radiograph film holders: KWIK-BITE, Snap-a-ray, and a Sticky tape, and to compare the quality of bitewing radiographs achieved with these types of film holders.

Study design

This retrospective study assessed 298 pairs of bitewing radiographs of children aged 3–14 years. The radiographs were evaluated according to age, type of behavioural management approach used, extent and degree of overlapping surfaces, visibility of the alveolar bone, and the presence of folds, cone-cut and elongated teeth.

Results

Snap-a-ray was used more frequently in younger children (p < 0.001), less cooperative children (p < 0.001), and in those who were treated under sedation (p < 0.001). The KWIK-BITE holder was used more frequently in older children (p < 0.001), cooperative children (p = 0.001), and in those under general anaesthesia (p < 0.001). About 76.5 % of the radiographs contained technical errors. The degree of overlapping surfaces in radiographs was not correlated with the type of film holder used, but rather with the degree of children’s cooperation.

Conclusions

The Snap-a-ray film holder was used more frequently in young uncooperative children; nevertheless, its use was not associated with an increased frequency or degree of overlapping surfaces.

Keywords

Diagnosis Overlapping Cone-cut KWIK-BITE Snap-a-ray Radiography 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ashkenazi M, Bijaoui E, Blumer S, Gordon M. Common mistakes, negligence and legal offenses in paediatric dentistry: a self-report. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2011;12:188–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? ASDC J Dent Child. 1962;29:150–63.Google Scholar
  3. Haugejorden O. A study of the methods of radiographic diagnosis dental caries in epidemiological investigations. Acta Odontol Scand Suppl. 1974;32(65):1–269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Harrison R, Richardson D. Bitewing radiographs of children taken with and without a film-holding device. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1989;18:97–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lervik T, Cowley GC. Quality of intraoral radiographs from 9–11-years-old Norwegian children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1982;10:323–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Murray JJ, Shaw L. Errors in diagnosis of approximal caries on bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1975;3:276–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McDonald SP. A method to reduce interproximal overlapping and improve reproducibility of bitewing radiographs for use in clinical trials. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983;11:289–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nysther A, Hansen BF. Errors on dental bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983;11:286–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pitts NB, Hamood SS, Longbottom C. An in vivo evaluation in children of the HPL bitewing device. J Dent. 1989;17:272–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sewerin I. Frequency and distribution of proximal overlapping on posterior bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1981;9:69–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Health Dentistry, Ministry of HealthJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Private Dental PracticeTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Petach-TikvaIsrael

Personalised recommendations