Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지

Absorbed and effective dose in direct and indirect digital panoramic radiography

직.간접디지털 파노라마 방사선촬영시 흡수선량과 유효선량

  • Lee, Gun-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxilloficial Radiology School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Soo (Department of Oral and Maxilloficial Radiology School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Duk (Department of Oral and Maxilloficial Radiology School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University)
  • 이근선 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면방사선학교실, 구강생물학연구소) ;
  • 김진수 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면방사선학교실, 구강생물학연구소) ;
  • 김재덕 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면방사선학교실, 구강생물학연구소)
  • Received : 2010.01.09
  • Accepted : 2010.01.31
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : We evaluated the absorbed doses to the organs and calculated the effective doses when using the digital panoramic radiography. Materials and Methods : The absorbed dose averages in major organs of oral and maxillofacial region were measured using the Dental head phantom (CIRS Co., USA), $^nLi_2B_4O_7$ TLD chip and UD-716AGL dosimeter (Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., JPN) when performing indirect and direct digital panoramic radiography. Effective doses were calculated from correspond to ICRP 2007 recommendations for two panoramic radiography. Results : The absorbed dose average on indirect and direct digital panoramic radiography was highest in parotid glands as measured 1259.6 mGy and 680.7 mGy respectively. Absorbed dose average in another organs were high in order of esophagus, submandibular gland, tongue and thyroid gland on both types of digital panoramic radiography. The absorbed dose average was higher on indirect type than direct one (p<0.05). The effective dose was higher on indirect type than direct one as measured 13.28 mSv and 8.70 mSv respectively. Conclusion : The absorbed doses in salivary gland and oral mucosa were high. However, thyroid gland also demands the attention on radiography due to high tissue weighting factor in spite of the low absorbed dose.

Keywords

References

  1. Mouyen F, Benz C, Sonnabend E, Lodter JP. Presentations and physical evaluation of RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989; 68 : 238-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(89)90200-4
  2. van der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136 : 1379-87. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0051
  3. Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002; 15 : 23-39.
  4. Cederberg RA, Tidwell E, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW. Comparison of storage phosphor digital imaging and radiographic film. Oral Surg Oral Med Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85 : 325-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90017-8
  5. Hedrick RT, Dove SB, Peters DD, Mcdavid WD. Radiographic determinationof canal length: direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography. J Endod 1994; 20 : 320-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80093-2
  6. Mentes A, Gencoglu N. Canal length evaluation of curved canals bydirect digital or conventional rediography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93 : 88-91. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2002.119466
  7. Wenzel A, Hintze H, Mikkelsen L, Mouyen F. Radiographic detection of occlusal caries in noncavitated teeth. A comparison of conventional film radiographs, digitized film radiographs, and RadioVisioGraphy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991; 72 : 621-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(91)90504-6
  8. Farman TT, Farman AG, Kelly MS, Firriolo FJ, Yancey JM, Stewart AV. Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography: effect of beam energy on radiation exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27 : 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600316
  9. Dula K, Sanderink G, van der Stelt PF, Mini R, Buser D. Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in digital panoramic radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 86 : 227-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90130-5
  10. Dannewitz B, Hassfeld S, Eickholz P, Muhling J. Effect of dose reduction in digital fect of anoramic radiography on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31 : 50-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600651
  11. Schulze R, Krummenauer F, Schalldach F, d'oedt B. Precision and accuccuy of measurements in digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29 : 52-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600500
  12. Ramesh A, TyndaeshDA, Ludlow JB. Evaluation of a new digital panoramic sysisi: a comparison with film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30 : 98-100. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600583
  13. Benediktsdottir IS, Hintze H, Petersen JK, Wenzel A. Accuracy of digital and film panoramic radiographs for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars and prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32 : 109- 15. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15999089
  14. Molander B, Gröndahl HG, Ekestubbe A. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33 : 32- 6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/17777906
  15. Association of Korean Professors of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral and maxillofacial radiology. 3rd ed. Seoul: Narae Publishing, Inc.; 2001. p. 213-5.
  16. Ogundare FO, Oni OM, Balogun FA. Measurement of x-ray absorbed doses to dental patients in two dental X ray units in Nigeria. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2002; 102 : 255-8.
  17. Williams JR, Montgomery A. Measurements of dose in panoramicdental radiology. Br J Radiol 2000; 73 : 1002-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.73.873.11064656
  18. Lecomber AR, Downes SL, Mokhtari M, Faulkner K. Optimisation of patient doses in programmable dental panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29 : 107-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600513
  19. Choi SC, Lee SM. The absorbed dose from each exposure program of the Orthopos panoramic machine. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2001; 31 : 215-9.
  20. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 60. Ann ICRP 1990; 21 : 1-201.
  21. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106 : 106-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018
  22. Cho JY, Han WJ, Kim EK. Absorbed and effective dose from periapical radiography by portable intraoral x-ray machine. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 149-56.
  23. Valentin J. 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37 : 1- 332.
  24. Task Group on Radiation Quality Effects in Radiological Protection, Committee 1 on Radiation Effects, International Commission on Radiological Protection. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor (w(R)). A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2003; 33 : 1-117
  25. Danforth RA, Clark DE. Effective dose from radiation absorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89 : 236-43. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.103526
  26. Gijbels F, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Debaveye D, Verlinden S, Sanderink G. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: Patient exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34 : 145-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28107460
  27. Draft document 2005 Recommendations of the International Commissionon Radiological Protection, ICRP http://www.icrp.org [Accessed 29 November 2006].
  28. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32 : 229- 34. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/26310390
  29. Lee JN, Han WJ, Kim EK. Absorbed and effective dose from newly developed cone beam computed tomography in Korea. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2007; 37 : 93-102.
  30. Ohman A, Kull L, Andersson J, Flygare L. Radiation doses in examination of lower third molars with computed tomography and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008; 37 : 445-52. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/86360042