Attitude of the Belgian dentist population towards radiation protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To perform a survey of private dental offices in Belgium and gain insight in the knowledge and attitude of Belgian dentists towards quality care in radiography and radiation protection. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed among 700 Belgian dental offices, which were included based on demographic data and the use of intraoral radiographic equipment. RESULTS: The response rate was 71%. Implementation of standards for quality care and radiation protection was suboptimal. In most offices, exposure settings of the intraoral radiation tube were 65 kV/kVp to 70 kV/kVp and 10 mA to 12 mA, with an average exposure time of 0.45 s. No reduction of exposure time was noticed when using faster film types. About one-third of the responders worked with digital image receptors. Aiming devices and rectangular collimation were used in a minority of practices (40% and 6%, respectively). The distance of the dentist to the radiation tube during exposure was on average 2.2 m, although 8% of the dentists assisted in holding the image receptor inside the patient's mouth. One quarter of the dentists were standing behind a wall when taking radiographs. Lead aprons were worn more often by female dentists. Dose estimation revealed that male dentists received a significantly larger effective dose per year than female dentists (8.3 mSv vs 3.2 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of standards of quality care for radiography and radiation protection could be improved among Belgian dentists. An elaborate educational programme in dental radiography is a prerequisite. Furthermore, recommendations could help to attain a change in attitude towards the use of ionizing radiation in order to meet European guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".