Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology
Oral and maxillofacial radiologyEffective dosages for recording Veraviewepocs dental panoramic images: analog film, digital, and panoramic scout for CBCT
Section snippets
Dosimetry
Dose measurements were carried out on an anthropomorphic phantom which was specially designed for dosimetry studies in dental radiography. The phantom was developed and built at the University of Göttingen (Germany)35 by means of a CT scan of a male adult. The computer data were transfered to a model made from material equivalent to human tissue. The phantom material for the spongiosa was produced by melting polyethylene with calcium hydroxyapatite. Compact bone and teeth were simulated by
Results
The averaged organ absorbed doses are presented in Table III. The mean value was obtained from nine measurements for each technique and each site (3 dosimeters in each site × 3 times performed). The mean organ absorbed doses ranged from 2.46 to 308.17 μGy for Verav-Conventional, from 1.17 to 175 μGy for Verav-Digital, and from 3.38 to 292.18 μGy for Verav-CBCT. The lowest organ dose was received by the nasion skin, during the Verav-Digital examination (1.17 μGy). The highest organ dose was
Discussion
Since the introduction of panoramic radiography, there have been considerable developments concerning its technical properties as well as dose reduction. One of the largest dose-reduction improvements has been faster screen/film combinations and the use of digital systems.
The ICRP recommends the calculation of E to estimate the effects of radiation on an exposed population. The calculation includes not only measurements of the site but also the type, quantity, sensitivity, and carcinogenic
Conclusion
Of the 3 types of Veravierepocs machines tested, the panoramic digital delivered the least radiation dosage. Use of the panoramic scout for CBCT provided a slightly higher but similar dose.
References (43)
Pantomography and orthopantomography
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1961)- et al.
Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2007) - et al.
Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2006) - et al.
Evaluation of a limited cone-beam volumetric imaging system: comparison with film radiography in detecting incipient proximal caries
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2007) - et al.
Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: the Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2001) - et al.
Radiobiologic risk estimation from dental radiologyPart I. Absorbed doses to critical organs
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1988) - et al.
The OP 100 Digipan—evaluation of the image layer, magnification factors, and dosimetry
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1997) - et al.
Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in digital panoramic radiography
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1998) - et al.
Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2003) - et al.
Effective dose from radiation absorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2000)
A new tomographical method for radiographing curved surfaces
Acta Radiol
Trends in the prescription of radiographs for comprehensive care patients in U.S. and Canadian dental schools
J Dent Educ
Decision making in dental radiography
Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: a position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
Organ dose and subjective image quality in indirect digital panoramic radiography
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
Radiation absorbed dose from dental implant radiography: a comparison of linear tomography, CT scan, and panoramic and intra-oral techniques
J Oral Implantol
Effective dose and risk assessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesionsAn ex vivo study in pig jaws
Clin Oral Invest
Evaluation of the usefulness of the limited cone-beam CT (3DX) in the assessment of the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa of the temporomandibular joint
Dentomaxillofac Radiol
Two- and three-dimensional orthodontic imaging using limited cone beam-computed tomography
Angle Orthod
Detection of noncavitated approximal caries lesion in digital images from seven solid-state receptors with particular focus on task-specific enhancement filtersAn ex vivo study in human teeth
Clin Oral Invest
Cited by (31)
DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE OF CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY TO DIAGNOSE IN VIVO/IN VITRO ROOT RESORPTION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
2023, Journal of Evidence-Based Dental PracticeCitation Excerpt :Effective doses vary widely between manufacturers. The NewTom 3G effective dose (30–78 μSv) has been described as the lowest, while, conversely, the CBMercuRay has been described as delivering the maximum effective dose at 283–1073 μSv.29,31-34 ( Tables 1 and 2).
Authors’ response
2018, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsClinical considerations and potential liability associated with the use of ionizing radiation in orthodontics
2018, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :Table I presents effective doses of 2D imaging techniques vs those of CBCT. The effective dose of panoramic radiography is estimated to be 6 to 38 μSv44-50; the effective dose of cephalometric radiography is approximately 2 to 10 μSv,49,51,52 whereas the effective dose of an intraoral full-mouth series is approximately 34 to 388 μSv.53 On the other hand, the wide range of reported effective doses of CBCT acquisitions is 20 to 1025 μSv, which varies between different machines, fields of view, and certain technique factors.44,46,54-60
Maxillary sinuses and midface in patients with cleidocranial dysostosis
2018, Annals of AnatomyCitation Excerpt :For the particular CBCT unit used (NewTome 3G 9′ FOV) an effective dose was calculated using thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) placed within RANDO Phantom and was recorded as being 51,5 μSv (Ludlow et al., 2006). This is a considerably smaller value than those of MSCT units within the same region of interest (280–1410 μSv) (Okano et al., 2009; Garcia Silva et al., 2008a,b; Loubele et al., 2009; Faccioli et al., 2009; Suomalainen et al., 2009). Computed tomography is one of the most significant advances in the clinical assessment of the dental patients.
Applications of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: An Overview of Published Indications and Clinical Usage in United States Academic Centers and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practices
2016, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryCitation Excerpt :The CBCT machine should be able to adjust the field size.19,33 The FOV must be as small as possible to evaluate the area in question and decrease radiation exposure to patients, particularly children.19,24,26,27,33,35 CBCT is not applicable to soft tissue studies.
Radiographic evaluation of bone density around immediately loaded implants
2015, Annals of AnatomyCitation Excerpt :Cone beam computed tomography has been increasingly used in dental surgery (Dalchow et al., 2006). It has the advantage of a relatively low effective dose (4–13 μSv) in comparison to the cone-beam computer tomography (368 μSv, Pauwels et al., 2012) and higher three dimensional diagnostic quality than the conventional panoramic radiography (5 μSv, Garcia Silva et al., 2008). Early in the development of this technique, its value as a high resolution technique was recognised in the precise planning of dental implantation (Cavalcanti et al., 2002).
Supported by CAPES—Brazilian Foundation.