S J Gibbs1. 1. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Effective dose equivalents (H(E)) and effective doses (E) for radiographic projections common in dentistry, calculated from the same organ dose distributions, are presented to determine whether the 2 quantities can be directly compared. STUDY DESIGN: Doses to all organs and tissues in the head, neck, trunk, and proximal extremities were determined for each projection (intraoral full-mouth radiographic survey, panoramic, cephalometric, temporomandibular tomograms, and submentovertex view) by computer simulation with Monte Carlo methods. H(E) and E were calculated from these complete distributions and by methods prescribed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). RESULTS: H(E) and E computed from complete dose distributions were found comparable within a few percentage points. However, those computed by strict application of ICRP methods were not. CONCLUSION: For radiographic projections with highly localized dose distributions, such as those common in dentistry, direct comparison of H(E) and E may not be meaningful, unless both computation algorithms are known.
OBJECTIVES: Effective dose equivalents (H(E)) and effective doses (E) for radiographic projections common in dentistry, calculated from the same organ dose distributions, are presented to determine whether the 2 quantities can be directly compared. STUDY DESIGN: Doses to all organs and tissues in the head, neck, trunk, and proximal extremities were determined for each projection (intraoral full-mouth radiographic survey, panoramic, cephalometric, temporomandibular tomograms, and submentovertex view) by computer simulation with Monte Carlo methods. H(E) and E were calculated from these complete distributions and by methods prescribed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). RESULTS: H(E) and E computed from complete dose distributions were found comparable within a few percentage points. However, those computed by strict application of ICRP methods were not. CONCLUSION: For radiographic projections with highly localized dose distributions, such as those common in dentistry, direct comparison of H(E) and E may not be meaningful, unless both computation algorithms are known.
Authors: Carolina Baratieri; Matheus Alves; Ana Maria Bolognese; Matilde C G Nojima; Lincoln I Nojima Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2014 May-Jun