Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this study was to compare the effective organ doses from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), multislice computed tomography (MSCT), and panoramic radiography.
Methods
The tissue-absorbed doses for the Kodak 9500 CBCT system, NewTom FP CBCT system, Morita Veraviewepocs panoramic X-ray device, and Somatom Sensation 16 MSCT system were calculated using thermoluminescent dosimeter chips placed at selected locations on a radiation analog dosimetry phantom. The tissue weighting factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 2007 were used to obtain effective doses.
Results
The effective doses from the CBCT systems were 118.65, 84.45, and 75.43 μSv for the Kodak 9500 large field of view (FOV), NewTom FP, and Kodak 9500 medium FOV, respectively. The effective doses were 11.37 μSv for the panoramic X-ray examination, 583.73 μSv for the MSCT “Dental” protocol, and 1983.89 μSv for the MSCT “NeckThinSlice” protocol.
Conclusions
The doses from CBCT are not sufficiently low to allow its use as a routine imaging technique instead of panoramic radiography. The FOV size should be chosen carefully to prevent excessive exposure of the patient to radiation. The use of MSCT in dentistry is associated with much radiation and should be avoided in cases where CBCT is adequate for 3D evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71:461–8.
Chau ACM, Fung K. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:559–65.
Tomasi C, Bressan E, Corazza B, Mazzoleni S, Stellini E, Lith A. Reliability and reproducibility of linear mandible measurements with the use of a cone-beam computed tomography and two object inclinations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:244–50.
Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:10–7.
Kayipmaz S, Sezgin OS, Saricaoglu ST, Bas O, Sahin B, Küçük M. The estimation of the volume of sheep mandibular defects using cone-beam computed tomography images and a stereological method. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:165–9.
Lee S, Gantes B, Riggs M, Crigger M. Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 3. Bone quality evaluation during osteotomy and implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:208–12.
Isoda K, Ayukawa Y, Tsukiyama Y, Sogo M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Relationship between the bone density estimated by cone-beam computed tomography and the primary stability of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02203.x.
Chang HW, Huang HL, Yu JH, Hsu JT, Li YF, Wu YF. Effects of orthodontic tooth movement on alveolar bone density. Clin Oral Investig. 2011. doi:10.1007/s00784-011-0552-9.
Lofthag-Hansen S, Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11:246–55.
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.
Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MGA. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:268–73.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthopos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32:229–34.
Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Ekestubbe A, Helmrot E, Gröndahl K. Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D Accuitomo and 3D Accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37:72–9.
Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:35–40.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and I-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:219–26.
Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028.
Valentine J. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:1237–43.
Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2010;115:600–11.
Koizumi H, Sur J, Seki K, Nakajima K, Sano T, Okano T. Effects of dose reduction on multi-detector computed tomographic images in evaluating the maxilla and mandible for pre-surgical implant planning: a cadaveric study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:830–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sezgin, Ö.S., Kayipmaz, S., Yasar, D. et al. Comparative dosimetry of dental cone beam computed tomography, panoramic radiography, and multislice computed tomography. Oral Radiol 28, 32–37 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-011-0078-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-011-0078-5