Imaging Science in Dentistry

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

DOI QR Code

Effective dose from direct and indirect digital panoramic units

  • Lee, Gun-Sun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Soo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Seo, Yo-Seob (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Duk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Oral Biology Research Institute, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2012.09.29
  • Accepted : 2012.11.07
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to provide comparative measurements of the effective dose from direct and indirect digital panoramic units according to phantoms and exposure parameters. Materials and Methods: Dose measurements were carried out using a head phantom representing an average man (175 cm tall, 73.5 kg male) and a limbless whole body phantom representing an average woman (155 cm tall, 50 kg female). Lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) chips were used for the dosimeter. Two direct and 2 indirect digital panoramic units were evaluated in this study. Effective doses were derived using 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations. Results: The effective doses of the 4 digital panoramic units ranged between $8.9{\mu}Sv$ and $37.8{\mu}Sv$. By using the head phantom, the effective doses from the direct digital panoramic units ($37.8{\mu}Sv$, $27.6{\mu}Sv$) were higher than those from the indirect units ($8.9{\mu}Sv$, $15.9{\mu}Sv$). The same panoramic unit showed the difference in effective doses according to the gender of the phantom, numbers and locations of TLDs, and kVp. Conclusion: To reasonably assess the radiation risk from various dental radiographic units, the effective doses should be obtained with the same numbers and locations of TLDs, and with standard hospital exposure. After that, it is necessary to survey the effective doses from various dental radiographic units according to the gender with the corresponding phantom.

Keywords

References

  1. Rushton VE, Horner K, Worthington HV. Aspects of panoramic radiography in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1999; 186: 342-4.
  2. Tugnait A, Clerehugh V, Hirschmann PN. Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental practice: a survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales. J Dent 2003; 31: 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00013-7
  3. Hildebolt CF, Couture RA, Whiting BR. Dental photostimulable phosphor radiography. Dent Clin North Am 2000; 44: 273-97.
  4. Macdonald R. Digital imaging for dentists. Aust Dent J 2001; 46: 301-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2001.tb00295.x
  5. Brennan J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. J Orthod 2002; 29: 66-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/29.1.66
  6. Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002; 3: 23-39.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Radiation protection. Protection from potential exposures: application to selected radiation sources. A report of a task group of the International Commission on Radiation Protection. Ann ICRP 1997; 27: 1-61.
  10. 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.
  11. White SC. 1992 assessment of radiation risk from dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1992; 21: 118-26.
  12. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37: 1-332.
  13. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991; 21: 1-201.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Choi SC, Lee SM. The absorbed dose from each exposure program of the Orthopos(R) panoramic machine. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2001; 31: 215-9.
  17. Lecomber AR, Yoneyama Y, Lovelock DJ, Hosoi T, Adams AM. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 255-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627
  18. 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
  19. 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.

Cited by

  1. 치과 파노라마 장치의 X선 공간선량분포 측정을 통한 두경부 피폭영역 조사에 대한 연구 vol.9, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2015.9.1.17
  2. 치과방사선 검사 시 방사선작업종사자의 위치에 따른 방사선 노출 평가 vol.9, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2015.9.7.433
  3. Absorbed organ and effective doses from digital intra-oral and panoramic radiography applying the ICRP 103 recommendations for effective dose estimations vol.89, pp.1066, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20151052
  4. Radiographic prediction of inferior alveolar nerve injury in third molar surgery vol.18, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401259
  5. Comparison of panoramic radiography and cone beam CT in the assessment of juxta-apical radiolucency vol.47, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170198
  6. Effective dose reduction using collimation function in digital panoramic radiography and possible clinical implications in dentistry vol.47, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180007
  7. Accuracy in Detecting Artificial Root Resorption in Panoramic Radiography versus Tomosynthetic Panoramic Radiographs vol.45, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.009
  8. Thermoluminescent dosimetry of panoramic radiography vol.45, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.21851/obr.45.01.202103.22
  9. The Influence of Age on the Development of Dental Caries in Children. A Radiographic Study vol.10, pp.8, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081702