Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography

Abstract

AimThe aim of this study was to measure organ doses and calculate the effective dose for indirect and direct digital cephalometric exposures. Material and methods Indirect digital cephalometric exposures were made of a Rando® phantom head using a Cranex Tome® multipurpose unit with storage phosphor plates from Agfa and the direct digital (Charge Coupled Device, CCD) exposures were made with a Proline Ceph CM® unit. Exposure settings were 70 kV and 4 mAs for indirect digital exposures. Direct digital exposures were made with 70 kV, 10 mA and a total scanning time of 23 s. TLD700® dosemeters were used to measure organ doses, and the effective doses were calculated with (effective dose sal ) and without inclusion of the salivary glands. A pilot study was carried out to compare diagnostic image quality of both imaging modalities. Results Effective doses were 1.7 µSv for direct digital and 1.6 µSv for indirect digital cephalometric imaging. When salivary glands were included in the calculation, effective doses sal were 3.4 µSv and 2.2 µSv respectively. Organ doses were higher for direct digital imaging, except for the thyroid gland, where the organ doses were comparable. Diagnostic image quality of indirect and direct digital cephalometric images seemed comparable. Conclusion Effective dose and effective dose sal were higher for direct digital cephalometric exposure compared with indirect digital exposure. Organ doses were higher for direct digital cephalography. From preliminary data, it may be presumed that diagnostic image quality of indirect and direct digital cephalometric images are comparable.

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Radiographs in Dentistry: Aspects Related to Radiation Dose

“…Many researchers do not include the calvaria [6, 8, 15, 18–24] and cervical vertebrae [18, 21, 23, 24] when counting the red bone marrow, esophagus [8, 18–21, 23–26], skin [25], and remaining tissues in the calculation of the effective dose [6, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24]. The ICRP version used is important due to the inherent variations in the different weighting factors.…”

Cephalometric evaluation of mandibular advancement at different horizontal jaw positions in obstructive sleep apnoea patients: a pilot study

“…with pharyngeal dimensions through cephalometric analysis . The significant advantage of cephalometry lies in its easy access, low cost and minimal radiation (1.6–1.7 msV) . All studies were carried out during the day because the alterations found in the upper airway of OSA patients during sleep persist during the daytime…”

Absorbed doses for patients undergoing panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography and CBCT

“…In the case of the cervical spine and the thyroid gland on the left side (the dose measured in the phantom), the right and left lens of the eye, as well as at the height of the right and left eye lenses (the surface of the phantom), there was no measured statistical difference in absorbed dose values (p > 0.05). Most papers concerning radiation dose estimation in panoramic radiography draw comparisons between conventional and digital panoramic radiography [11,[18][19][20]. These studies have concluded that any dose reduction results in an image quality difference with a predominance of the conventional panoramic device [21].…”