Background: Radiological examination in cervical services, Radiographers often opening the collimation wider of the size of the imaging plate for fear of being cut. This is done because it is supported by the image cropping facility on the CR. So there is a habit of opening the collimation width as wide as the imaging plate, which is often done with the assumption that it is better to widen the collimation than cut off the object. Obviously this will increase the radiation dose in patients with basic limitations. According to ICRP, patient safety must refer to the principle of radiation protection ALARA namely in the shortest possible time to get quality radiographs and patients receive the most minimum radiation exposure as possible.Methods: This research is a descriptive analytic research conducted with a cross sectional approach. The study was conducted by varying the radiation field area to be used for cervical examination. There are 10 variations of collimation area with 3 (three) exposures in each collimation. Then measured contrast, noise and radiation dose. Radiation dose is calculated by means of a babyline device.Results: The results showed that the collimation setting did not affect contrast radiography in CR because collimation was not the main factor that could affect contrast radiography on CR. The collimation setting on cervical radiography has an effect on the radiation dose, so it is necessary to adjust the collimation to get the minimum dose possible. The most optimal collimation area on cervical radiographic examination was obtained at a size of 12 x 24 cm with the smallest noise reception and dose compared to others and had higher contrast. Average contrast value achieved was 0.45 with a dose of 39.23 µGy.Conclusion: The collimation setting on cervical radiography has an effect on the radiation dose, so it is very necessary to adjust the collimation to get the minimum dose possible. The most optimal collimation area on cervical radiographic examination is obtained at a size of 12 x 24 cm with the smallest noise reception and dose compared to others and has a higher contrast.

Bitewing radiography is a valuable tool in detecting and monitoring dental decay and other oral health problems and is typically performed as part of a routine dental examination. It has certain limitations that should be considered. Some of these limitations may cause discomfort or pain to the patient if not positioned correctly. Some patients may find biting down on the film holder difficult or have a strong gag reflex, making the procedure uncomfortable or even impossible. Bitewing radiography can be costly, especially if it needs to be performed regularly, which may limit access to this diagnostic tool for some patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a dental X-ray positioner with a silicone layer on the quality of radiographic images in posterior bitewing dental examinations. Using this positioner was expected to improve the precision of radiographic interpretation and subsequent patient treatment. The study used a multivariate general linear model to analyze the data obtained from radiographic images using the X-ray positioner with the silicone layer and the conventional X-ray positioner. The results showed no significant difference in image quality between the two positioners, indicating that adding the silicone layer did not significantly improve image quality. However, using any X-ray positioner is still beneficial in ensuring accurate radiographic interpretation and subsequent patient treatment.

Background: Patients with suspected appendicitis are always asked by the sending doctor (Pediatric Surgeon) to ask for an oral appendicography examination without seeking other investigations such as ultrasound or CT scan. Whereas in the oral appendicography examination, false negative often occurs so that the patient is exposed to radiation several times until the barium reaches the caecum area and no more barium is still in the small intestine. Compared to the oral appendicography examination, ultrasound examination is easier in patient preparation, cheaper in terms of cost and more safety against the dangers of X-ray radiation.Methods: This research is a descriptive analytic study conducted with a cross sectional approach. The study was conducted by providing interventions for ultrasound examination before carrying out an oral appendicography examination. Ultrasound examination of the appendix is an examination using ultrasound waves with a frequency of 5-7.5 MHz or 2-4 MHz to diagnose appendicitis. Oral appendicography examination is a radiological examination to confirm the diagnosis of appendicitis using 100 grams of barium sulfate contrast medium diluted to a volume of 200 ml that is administered orally.Results: Diagnostic information obtained on oral appendicography examination of suspected appendicitis in radiology department Roemani Hospital, among others, can show the presence of calcification and the length of the appendix organs can be measured. Diagnostic information obtained on ultrasound examination of suspected appendicitis, among others, can show the presence of debris (pus), can evaluate the thickness of the intestinal wall and its vascularity.Conclusion: Ultrasound examination for suspected appendicitis is the first choice in diagnosing appendicitis than oral appendicography because it can be done in a faster, safer, more convenient and non-invasive manner and the cost of ultrasound is cheaper than oral appendicography.

Increasing delay time between erasure and image acquisition can lead to the appearance of dark noise on the Computed Radiography (CR) imaging plate (IP). The purpose of this study is to investigate the time delay of the last erasure that can be affected in dark noise appearance of four sizes Carestream CR’s imaging plate in Radiology Laboratory of Poltekkes Kemenkes Semarang. This study used a quantitative experimental method. Each size of IP was exposed with one of Hand, Cranium, Chest, and Abdomen anthropomorphic phantom, read on CR, and left for 0 hours, 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, 9 hours, 12 hours and 24 hours to produce blank images. The blank images after post-processing were evaluated with qualitative and quantitative criteria. Qualitative criteria produced uniformity images, without ghost images artifact. While quantitative criteria were determined by the exposure index value, pixel value, and pixel value standard deviation calculated by ImageJ. The results of this study showed that all of the IPs did not pass the criteria. Dark noise appeared in 0 hours after the last erasure shown from un-uniformity images, ghost images artifact, PV, and PVSD were overpassed the standard values. Dark noise has increased the time delay between last erasure and subsequent use. The imaging plate must be erased before it acquires the next images.