OBJECTIVES: Evaluation and reduction of dose are important issues. Since cone beam CT (CBCT) has been established now not just in dentistry, the number of acquired examinations continues to rise. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to compare the doses of available devices on the market owing to different exposition parameters, volumes and geometries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the spans of effective doses (EDs) of ten different CBCT devices. METHODS: 48 thermoluminescent dosemeters were placed in 24 sites in a RANDO(®) head phantom. Protocols with lowest exposition parameters and protocols with highest exposition parameters were performed for each of the ten devices. The ED was calculated from the measured energy doses according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection 2007 recommendations for each protocol and device, and the statistical values were evaluated afterwards. RESULTS: The calculation of the ED resulted in values between 17.2 µSv and 396 µSv for the ten devices. The mean values for protocols with lowest and highest exposition parameters were 31.6 µSv and 209 µSv, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It was not the aim of this study to evaluate the image quality depending on different exposition parameters but to define the spans of EDs in which different CBCT devices work. There is a wide span of ED for different CBCT devices depending on the selected exposition parameters, required spatial resolution and many other factors.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation and reduction of dose are important issues. Since cone beam CT (CBCT) has been established now not just in dentistry, the number of acquired examinations continues to rise. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to compare the doses of available devices on the market owing to different exposition parameters, volumes and geometries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the spans of effective doses (EDs) of ten different CBCT devices. METHODS: 48 thermoluminescent dosemeters were placed in 24 sites in a RANDO(®) head phantom. Protocols with lowest exposition parameters and protocols with highest exposition parameters were performed for each of the ten devices. The ED was calculated from the measured energy doses according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection 2007 recommendations for each protocol and device, and the statistical values were evaluated afterwards. RESULTS: The calculation of the ED resulted in values between 17.2 µSv and 396 µSv for the ten devices. The mean values for protocols with lowest and highest exposition parameters were 31.6 µSv and 209 µSv, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It was not the aim of this study to evaluate the image quality depending on different exposition parameters but to define the spans of EDs in which different CBCT devices work. There is a wide span of ED for different CBCT devices depending on the selected exposition parameters, required spatial resolution and many other factors.
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
Authors: Marina Ernst; Peter Manser; Karl Dula; Werner Volken; Marco Fm Stampanoni; Michael K Fix Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: R Pauwels; G Zhang; C Theodorakou; A Walker; H Bosmans; R Jacobs; R Bogaerts; K Horner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Juliana Bm da Fonte; Taís M de Andrade; Ricardo Lc Albuquerque; Maria de Fátima B de Melo; Wilton M Takeshita Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 2.419