OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare effective doses resulting from different scan protocols for cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) using International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 1990 and 2007 calculations of dose. STUDY DESIGN: Average tissue-absorbed dose, equivalent dose, and effective dose for a ProMax 3D CBCT with different dental protocols were calculated using thermoluminescent dosimeter chips in a human equivalent phantom. Effective doses were derived using ICRP 1990 and the superseding 2007 recommendations. RESULTS: Effective doses (ICRP 2007) for default patient sizes from small to large ranged from 102 to 298 μSv. The coefficient of determination (R(2)) between tube current and effective dose (ICRP 2007) was 0.90. When scanning with lower resolution settings, the effective doses were reduced significantly (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: ProMax 3D can provide a wide range of radiation dose levels. Reduction in radiation dose can be achieved when using lower settings of exposure parameters.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare effective doses resulting from different scan protocols for cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) using International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 1990 and 2007 calculations of dose. STUDY DESIGN: Average tissue-absorbed dose, equivalent dose, and effective dose for a ProMax 3D CBCT with different dental protocols were calculated using thermoluminescent dosimeter chips in a human equivalent phantom. Effective doses were derived using ICRP 1990 and the superseding 2007 recommendations. RESULTS: Effective doses (ICRP 2007) for default patient sizes from small to large ranged from 102 to 298 μSv. The coefficient of determination (R(2)) between tube current and effective dose (ICRP 2007) was 0.90. When scanning with lower resolution settings, the effective doses were reduced significantly (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: ProMax 3D can provide a wide range of radiation dose levels. Reduction in radiation dose can be achieved when using lower settings of exposure parameters.
Authors: J J Morant; M Salvadó; I Hernández-Girón; R Casanovas; R Ortega; A Calzado Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 2.419