Guest Editorial

Abstract

The aim of this supplement on dentomaxillofacial radiology (DMFR) is to enhance the knowledge base of dentists in the area of DMFR and to promote the specialty of DMFR. As Guest Editor it is my role to guide readers through a series of papers selected both because of the expertise of the contributor/s as well as an enhancement of the services offered to patients as a routine part of their oral health care. The first commercially produced rotational panoramic radiography unit became available in 1961 and virtually revolutionized maxillofacial radiology. The interest and uptake of this technology was almost unprecedented and understandably the manufacturers have accepted the challenge and now produce radiology machines capable not only of producing panoramic imaging but a range of other techniques. The recent introduction of cone beam volumetric tomography (CBVT) is reactivating this fervour. Interest in DMFR and demands for continuing professional development in this specialty are at an all-time high and so it is with great pleasure and pride in my specialty that I am presenting this supplement. This supplement, following in the wake of previous very successful supplements, is designed to complement and add to our existing knowledge in the field of DMFR. Experts from around the world and Australia were invited to contribute cutting edge review articles covering many aspects of DMFR. As you might expect, a relatively large number of articles focus on different aspects of CBVT. However, there are also articles covering the basics of DMFR including: dose, radiographic interpretation, forensic radiology and radiological jurisprudence. We are a profession responsible for guiding the health of our patients and should be ever mindful that ionizing radiation has the potential to adversely affect the patient’s health. It is our responsibility to use ionizing radiation only when it is appropriate and when we do expose our patients to X-rays, we must gain maximum return from that exposure. All too often dentists fail to use the clinical skills that they acquired during their training and in practice, prior to irradiating patients. Only after all clinical avenues of assessment have failed to solve the problem or elucidate the cause of the problem should we resort to ionizing radiation. This supplement will hopefully give the reader information that will help them decide whether diagnostic imaging is appropriate given the patient’s treatment requirements. We are being negligent if we irradiate the patient unnecessarily, but also if we fail to use diagnostic radiography when appropriate. We are also being negligent if we do not get the most from each radiographic examination that we undertake or request from a third party provider. That means scanning every radiograph and data set for incidental findings that may or may not relate to the original diagnostic indication. Also, as indicated in the article on radiological jurisprudence, the whole radiograph and the whole data set is the responsibility of the person performing the examination. This can be particularly significant when examinations using wide-field of view cone beam units are performed in dental practices. Due care requires that all available imaging is reported and the clinician accepts this responsibility every time an image is exposed. I encourage you all to read the articles presented in this supplement and renew your excitement in a field that is exploding with new technology and advancements. You and your patients will benefit greatly from your expanded knowledge base in the field of dentomaxillofacial radiology.