OBJECTIVES: (a) To measure the absorbed radiation doses at 16 anatomical sites of a Rando phantom and (b) to calculate the effective doses including and excluding the salivary gland doses in panoramic radiography using a conventional and a digital panoramic device. STUDY DESIGN: Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100) were placed at 16 sites in a Rando phantom, using a conventional, Planmeca Promax and a digital, Planmeca PM2002CC Proline 2000 (Planmeca Oy, 00880 Helsinki, Finland) panoramic device for panoramic radiography. During conventional radiography the selected exposure settings were 66 kVp, 6 mA and 16s, while during digital radiography two combinations were selected 60 kVp, 4 mA, 18 s and 66 kVp, 8 mA, 18s with and without image processing function. The dosimeters were annealed in a PTW-TLDO Harshaw oven. TLD energy response was studied using RQN beam narrow series at GAEC's Secondary Standard Calibration Laboratory. The reader used was a Harshaw, 4500. Effective dose was estimated according to ICRP(60) report (E(ICRP60)). An additional estimation of the effective dose was accomplished including the doses of the salivary glands (E(SAL)). A Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The effective dose, according to ICRP report (E(ICRP60)) in conventional panoramic radiography was 17 microSv and E(SAL) was 26 microSv. The respective values in digital panoramic radiography were E(ICRP60)=23 microSv and E(SAL)=38 microSv; while using the lowest possible radiographic settings E(ICRP60) was 8 microSv and E(SAL) was 12 microSv. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose reduction in digital panoramic radiography can be achieved, if the lowest possible radiographic settings are used.
OBJECTIVES: (a) To measure the absorbed radiation doses at 16 anatomical sites of a Rando phantom and (b) to calculate the effective doses including and excluding the salivary gland doses in panoramic radiography using a conventional and a digital panoramic device. STUDY DESIGN: Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100) were placed at 16 sites in a Rando phantom, using a conventional, Planmeca Promax and a digital, Planmeca PM2002CC Proline 2000 (Planmeca Oy, 00880 Helsinki, Finland) panoramic device for panoramic radiography. During conventional radiography the selected exposure settings were 66 kVp, 6 mA and 16s, while during digital radiography two combinations were selected 60 kVp, 4 mA, 18 s and 66 kVp, 8 mA, 18s with and without image processing function. The dosimeters were annealed in a PTW-TLDO Harshaw oven. TLD energy response was studied using RQN beam narrow series at GAEC's Secondary Standard Calibration Laboratory. The reader used was a Harshaw, 4500. Effective dose was estimated according to ICRP(60) report (E(ICRP60)). An additional estimation of the effective dose was accomplished including the doses of the salivary glands (E(SAL)). A Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The effective dose, according to ICRP report (E(ICRP60)) in conventional panoramic radiography was 17 microSv and E(SAL) was 26 microSv. The respective values in digital panoramic radiography were E(ICRP60)=23 microSv and E(SAL)=38 microSv; while using the lowest possible radiographic settings E(ICRP60) was 8 microSv and E(SAL) was 12 microSv. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose reduction in digital panoramic radiography can be achieved, if the lowest possible radiographic settings are used.
Authors: Reinhilde Jacobs; Ruben Pauwels; William C Scarfe; Carl De Cock; Karl Dula; Guy Willems; An Verdonck; Constantinus Politis Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Ralf Kurt Willy Schulze; Catrin Cremers; Heiko Karle; Hugo de Las Heras Gala Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Lienard A Chang; Donald L Miller; Choonsik Lee; Dunstana R Melo; Daphnée Villoing; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Sarah J Winters; Michael Labrake; Charles F Myers; Hyeyeun Lim; Cari M Kitahara; Martha S Linet; Steven L Simon Journal: Health Phys Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.316