Talk:Dental radiography

This article is very basic
woah... this article needs alot of work (Bouncingmolar 10:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Why is this page way better than the Projectional radiograhy page?? Schrodingers cats (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal
I think that Dental Radiography would be a more appropriate title for this page. It should also include information about OPG's and Digital X-rays which should be merged when this article becomes more complete. (Bouncingmolar 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Absolutely. It should be moved to Dental radiography, though this is not the same as the speciality: Oral and maxillofacial radiology, which still needs an article. - Dozenist  talk  13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Restructured skeleton of article
I hope i have helped format the structure this article can be expanded into. (Bouncingmolar 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I like all the work you have been doing. Keep up the good work.  I have been a bit busy of late, but anytime I can help I will.  Drop me any questions on my talk page if you have any. - Dozenist  talk  13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I just saw the merge proposal of full mouth series to this article. I completely support the merger as an article titled "dental radiography" is more appropriate than an article titled "full mouth series". The latter is a term which can be explained in this article. Since there is already a skeleton for the necessary information in this article, the information in Full mouth series can be incorporated nicely here. - Dozenist talk  17:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When I started FMS, I meant to keep to that topic, but it kinda just spiralled into all dental radiography. I'll see what I can do.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempted Merge
Thought I'd take a stab at it. Splendide 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a merge, shouldn't the other article no longer exist?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. 'full mouth series' now directs here. Splendide 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

cost and radiation data
We need to know cost and radiation data, risks etc for the various kinds of dental xrays: 2D, CT, CBCT, etc. These resources may help with radiation data:
 * Dr. Bernard Friedland, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 1dec07
 * Cone Beam CT Imaging for Implants
 * Cone Beam vs. Conventional CT Scans: Radiation Levels?

Where to look for cost and risk data? -69.87.200.227 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

-

Specific measured doses need to be added, to substantiate the assertion in sentence one of paragraph three, "The dosage of X-ray radiation received by a dental patient is typically small, equivalent to a few days' worth of background radiation environmental radiation exposure, or similar to the dose received during a cross-country airplane flight." K7aay (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Oral and maxillofacial radiology
Same specialty? Lesion ( talk ) 17:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dental radiography is a subset of Oral and maxillofacial radiology, but both seem sufficiently large that they could justifiably remain separate. Also, while a dentist would be interested in the results of Dental radiography, a maxillofacial surgeon would usually be interested in the results of Oral and maxillofacial radiology. So, the two articles have a different professional focus. Given that this is a stale merge discussion with no other support over 3.5 years, I'll remove the merge templates. Klbrain (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives? Low radiation solutions and discussion?
Since the 1990's there's been an ongoing discussion about low radiation, ambient radiation, and other solutions for looking closely at or into the teeth, such as tooth-cams and sonography (sonic or ultrasonic imaging), although some of these have been closely tied in with quackery.

Public concern has been on the rise, and many solutions and alternatives have been developed. AFAIK most hospitals today use low radiation tomography, and even ambient radiation is possible. On the other hand, the concerns are poo-poohed - probably correctly, by the radiography establishment, see the first external link (Frequently Asked Questions).

I know pop mechanics from 1991 is not a very good source, but it's a starting point for this discussion: Popular Mechanics 1991 article about ambient radiography and alternatives.

פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And then there's this type of quackery: Cavitation on Quackwatch... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's someone who flatly states NO to the question of existing alternatives. But TTBOMK the modern machines do in fact use less radiation than those before the 1990's. Correct? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Smummert1 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)