Effective dose reduction using collimation function in digital panoramic radiography and possible clinical implications in dentistry

Benchimol, Daniel; Koivisto, Juha; Kadesjö, Nils; Shi, Xie‐Qi

doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180007

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These options are especially suitable for children and adolescents. Reducing the field size in panoramic radiography, so as to encompass the developing dentition exclusively, can result in up to a 60% reduction of the radiation dose [20,21]. If a collimated panoramic image would show at least all the teeth, the majority of the interviewees stated that they would consider it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of radiography in orthodontic treatment on children and adolescents: A questionnaire‐based study performed in Sweden

Stervik

Lith

Westerlund

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to investigate the objective and choice of different radiographic examinations used in orthodontic treatment of children and adolescents, using a web‐based questionnaire directed toward specialists in orthodontics. The questionnaire was distributed to 255 orthodontists in Sweden. In total, 142 responses were received, and 11 specialists were interviewed. Questions were related to the use of radiography during different treatment stages; modifications to the treatment regimen owing to radiographic findings; and the use of and/or need for guidelines in radiography. Radiographic examinations were performed in all treatment stages and mainly during treatment planning. Panoramic radiographs were always or often used by the respondents (99%), less frequently used were lateral radiographs (66%) and intra‐oral radiographs of the incisor regions (69%). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was sparsely employed. A majority of the respondents considered that radiographic findings often or occasionally affected the treatment. Local‐ or clinic‐specific guidelines were used by 85% of respondents. The need for national guidelines was considered low. The frequent use of panoramic radiography together with application of local guidelines, may indicate that radiographic selection criteria are not individualised. National guidelines might facilitate updates on radiographic techniques, and on radiation doses and risks in young patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of radiography in orthodontic treatment on children and adolescents: A questionnaire‐based study performed in Sweden

Stervik

Lith

Westerlund

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The difference between MSCT effective dose and the average effective dose of the investigated CBCT protocols was 34.2 µSv. Although this dose difference may seem negligible, being equivalent to only 1% (4 days) of the yearly background radiation dose (3.1 mSv), 40 it is still comparable to the effective dose resulting from two dental panoramic examinations 41 . In comparison, the effective dose difference between the radiography (1.5 µSv) and the CBCT dose on average (3.2 µSv) was 1.7 µSv, which is comparable to 5 h of background radiation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…5.). In order to evaluate the possible effective dose to the skull during the elbow CT examination, the head effective dose assessment results of a previous study by Koivisto et al were used 41 . In their study, the FOV of a CBCT device was directed in different elevations of the skull and the effective dose was assessed using MOSFET dosimeter measurements and PCXMC Monte Carlo simulations respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative dosimetry of radiography device, MSCT device and two CBCT devices in the elbow region

Koivisto

Eijnatten

Ludlow

et al. 2021

J Applied Clin Med Phys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to estimate and to compare effective doses in the elbow region resulting from four different x-ray imaging modalities. Absorbed organ doses were measured using 11 metal oxide field effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters that were placed in a custom-made anthropomorphic elbow RANDO phantom.Examinations were performed using Shimadzu FH-21 HR radiography device, Siemens Sensation Open 24-slice MSCT-device, NewTom 5G CBCT device, and Planmed Verity CBCT device, and the effective doses were calculated according to ICRP 103 recommendations. The effective dose for the conventional radiographic device was 1.5 µSv. The effective dose for the NewTom 5G CBCT ranged between 2.0 and 6.7 µSv, for the Planmed Verity CBCT device 2.6 µSv and for the Siemens Sensation MSCT device 37.4 µSv. Compared with conventional 2D radiography, this study demonstrated a 1.4-4.6 fold increase in effective dose for CBCT and 25-fold dose for standard MSCT protocols. When compared with 3D CBCT protocols, the study showed a 6-19 fold increase in effective dose using a standard MSCT protocol. CBCT devices offer a feasible low-dose alternative for elbow 3D imaging when compared to MSCT.

show abstract

“…It is a fundamental requirement of radiation protection that all exposures to x-rays as part of diagnosis should be clinically justified for each patient [8]. Prescription of dental radiographic examination is made on individual basis, needs justification and optimization according to international recommendations [9]. Thus, it is not justified to take DPR before a clinical examination, for all new patients and to screen asymptomatic patients [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation Dose and Risk in Dental Panoramic Radiography: literature review

Elmorabit

Ennibi

2021

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To review and search studies that evaluated the radiation doses and risks from dental panoramic radiography (DPR). This review may answer the following question “does panoramic dental radiation expose patients to health risks? Materiels and Methods: The search strategy was performed using the databases including GoogleScholar, PubMed, Science Direct and Nature from 2010 until september 2020. The search was limited to articles published in English. The 1031 titles that appeared, 15 fulfilled the criteria and were included in the review. Results: in 10 studies, the effective dose from DPRs was in the range of 5-49µSv, depending on the panoramic equipment used. The salivary glands received the highest absorbed doses (359-3044,3 μGy) and the thyroid gland absorbed doses were (40-250µGy). In terms of health risk, according to 5 studies, DPRs can induce genotoxic effects in oral epithelial cells and even induce cytotoxic effects leading to cell death. In 2 studies, women are at higher risk than men. The overall risk of cancer from radiation in children was more than adult. Conclusion: DPR can expose patient to health risks. It should only be applied when necessary, using radiation protection criteria.

show abstract

Effective dose reduction using collimation function in digital panoramic radiography and possible clinical implications in dentistry

Abstract: Since the effective dose may be reduced without losing diagnostic information in the area of interest, collimation feature of panoramic imaging should be routinely applied when the diagnostic task allows.

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Choice of radiography in orthodontic treatment on children and adolescents: A questionnaire‐based study performed in Sweden

Choice of radiography in orthodontic treatment on children and adolescents: A questionnaire‐based study performed in Sweden

Comparative dosimetry of radiography device, MSCT device and two CBCT devices in the elbow region

Radiation Dose and Risk in Dental Panoramic Radiography: literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About