A New Tissue-Like Material for Use as Bolus

Lindsay, Duncan D.; Stern, Babette E.

doi:10.1148/60.3.355

Cited by 14 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dry mandibles are widely used in optical bone density studies 3,5,6,10 . However, the studies previously reported in the literature do not consider the significant influence of the patient’s soft tissue located between the bone and the x-ray beam.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation among different materials to replace soft tissue in oral radiology studies

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to establish which materials afford better simulation of soft tissues in Oral Radiology studies.Material and MethodsThe sample was composed of four materials in eleven different thicknesses to simulate the soft tissues of the face. The mean values of the relative amounts of radiographic contrast of the materials were determined and compared to a gold standard value, which was obtained from 20 patients who were referred to have periapical radiographs taken of the left mandibular molars. Data were subjected to statistical analysis with Dunnett's test (p<0.05).ResultsThe mean value of the relative amounts of contrast encountered in the patients was 0.47, with a range between 0.36 and 0.64 for all 44 material/thickness combinations. The majority of the tested materials showed values close to those of the patients’ tissues, without statistically significant differences among them. The values of only three materials/ thickness combinations differed statistically from those of the patients’ tissues.ConclusionsBased on the results of the present study, it may be concluded that except for utility wax (4 mm and 8 mm) and water (4 mm), all materials tested at different thickness could be used as soft tissue substitute materials in Oral Radiology studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation among different materials to replace soft tissue in oral radiology studies

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considera tions of sensitivity would not allow these dimensions to be further re duced, but it is considered that the error introduced by the chamber actually used was small in all situations except at the edge of the field. The chamber was built into the upper surface of a solid phantom constructed of sheets of Mix D wax ( J O N E S and R A I N E 1949), together with 'Lincolnshire' bolus (LINDSAY and STERN 1953), contained in a wooden box. By means of a sensitive version of the ionization current comparator ( K E M P 1945), recently described by K E M P and BANFIELD (1957), the ionization current was measured relative to a standard current obtained from a '/3-ray reference chamber' (KEMP" and BURNS 1958) containing a source of ß-radiation (S 35 ).…”

Section: Physical Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%