Talk:Panoramic radiograph

Manual merge of contents from orthopantomogram

As per general consensus WT:DENT#Merge_panoramic_radiograph_with_Orthopantomogram?. Page will need further work...I'll help out when I can. Lesion (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues following merge

• I moved most of the content of the old article to a new subsection in diagnosis, as it was all about using panoramics to detect atherosclerosis and not really about the view generally. This section has a lot of references, many do not meet WP:MEDRS as they are primary sources. Possible CoI/Undue weight issues when that content was created? We need to find secondary sources for this content if it is to be kept.

• Article structure should ideally follow WP:MEDMOS#Medical_tests, i.e. contain the follwoing secitons:
  • Types, if more than one kind or variant of the test or procedure exists
  • Indications, including contraindications
  • Mechanism, how the test or procedure works, if it's interesting
  • Preparation
  • Procedure
  • Interpretation of results, including accuracy and specificity of test results
  • Adverse effects
  • Legal issues, such as whether special counseling is mandated, if any
  • History of the test

• I am generally in favor of including more images rather than less. Others may disagree. There is one X-ray which is v dark (possibly overexposed or a problem when it was digitized) and might not be needed now we have much better examples. We have lots and lots of available images for this article on commons... [1]

• the content from orthopantomogram was a bit strange, but more generally scoped than the atherosclerosis stuff. Referencing was poor. This content could use a lot more refs. Lesion (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Detection of atheromas

Thanks James for providing advice and also starting to fix some of the problems on this article. Re UNDUE, only 3 commented, but this was "news to them", which I agree with...there is simply no time to try and look for coincidental findings like this in a busy department or in primary care...and certainly would not be an indication for the image in itself. Also this mainstream textbook (2007) <ref>{{cite book|last=Cawson|first=Eric Whaites ; foreword by R. A.|title=Essentials of dental radiography and radiology|year=2007|publisher=Churchill Livingstone|location=Edinburgh|isbn=978-0-443-10168-7|edition=4th ed.}}</ref> makes no mention of this topic in all its 500 or so pages. I would go as far to say this is the authoritative textbook on oral and maxillofacial radiology in my part of the world...not notable enough to be included apparently. The research looks like there might be something to it, but doesn't seem to have caught on and permeated down to everyday practise, which is a shame if it would be useful screening tool. Lesion (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding patient psycology section recommended

I would like to see a patient (dis)comfort section in this article. I would propose 3 areas to address, especially since psycho-somatic complaints and resulting faulty imaging results are getting significantly more common in the last few years. (Mainly a central-european experience and may have something to do with higher general anxiety level in urbanized people in the 6th year of the world economic crisis.)

- Sitting vs. standing patient placement: it looks like Europe is almost entirely standing tall, while sitting exposures are more common in NA. For some reason, sitting appears to work better with the more nervous kind of patients (less re-shoots). Furthermore, the oft-quoted "shoulder-blocking" argument made against sitting exposures look valid only for the "fuller sized" american patients

- the need to instruct patients NOT to hold their breath, unless they are experienced (e.g. do hobby scuba). City populace is often short of lung-vital capacity and in just 20 secs they get shakes from low oxygen reflex and makes it hard to keep the tongue in the important up-pressed position. Too few x-ray techs take the time to instruct patients to breathe through the nose slowly, but normally.

- the need to instruct patients NOT to keep their eyes closed during the process. (There is a common miconception the lids will protect the eyeballs from cataract-causing rad dosage.) Yet, patients who think about that, are the already nervous kind, who are often bothered by literally freak thoughts with closed eyes. This month saw one jump out of the live-rotating apparatus in panic, claiming he (!) felt the device is about to unscrew his head as if it was a lightbulb... Vendors are equipping new ortopano devices with background music feature, which may contribute to this problem, by subconsciously encouraging patients to close their eyes. 91.83.33.82 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The subject/debate you propose are unknown to me. In general, states such as "sitting appears to work better with the more nervous kind of patients" and "City populace is often short of lung-vital capacity" need to be referenced by a reliable source (see WP:source. Any changes, especially controversial topics such as this, will need to have reliable sources in order to stay in the article. Ian Furst (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you are also misusing the term psychosomatic. See here Psychosomatic medicine#Connotations of the term "psychosomatic illness". Support sitting vs standing geographic variation going in to the article, but please use a reliable source. Other stuff also need a source please, personal opinion and experience is not enough... Lesion (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Article 'Panograph' merge? Suggestion

An article Panography was created in 2011. The content discussed the use of 'joiners' in the creation of panoramic images, and 'Panograph' is used in some texts in relation to the technique. That content is now moved to Panoramic photography but Panography remains.

Given the authority and thoroughness of this article Panoramic radiograph, I believe Panography is redundant and should be deleted, but that some mention of 'panography' is warranted here since the term is seen in the literature (see refs in that article, and more) to refer to panoramic radiography in dentistry and forensic science as discussed here. Redirects would be useful.

I am not expert in the field of dental imaging, so may I leave these tasks to editors of this page? Happy to assist.

Thank you, JamesMcArdle 02:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

First practical application of Panoramic Radiography in US

As noted in Journal of Dental Research April 1952, Dr. Robert J. Nelsen

the panoramic technique. He showed the motion of the x-ray tube then when the x-ray tube stops, the patient rotates and another segment is exposed. The extent of rotation is adjusted to conform to the size and shape of the arch. The third motion the tube is again properly angulated and moves to expose the next region while the patient is stationary. Dr. Nelsen's work and research used dry skulls only as shown in the attached photo.

REF: Journal of Dental Research April, 1952: Volume: 31 issue: 2, page(s): 158-165 Issue published: April 1, 1952 Robert J. Nelsen, D.D.S. University of Washington, Seattle 5, Wash John W. Kumpula University of Washington, Seattle 5, Wash