OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) technology dosemeters with thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) (TLD 100; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) in the maxillofacial area. METHODS: Organ and effective dose measurements were performed using 40 TLD and 20 MOSFET dosemeters that were alternately placed in 20 different locations in 1 anthropomorphic RANDO(®) head phantom (the Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY). The phantom was exposed to four different CBCT default maxillofacial protocols using small (4 × 5 cm) to full face (20 × 17 cm) fields of view (FOVs). RESULTS: The TLD effective doses ranged between 7.0 and 158.0 µSv and the MOSFET doses between 6.1 and 175.0 µSv. The MOSFET and TLD effective doses acquired using four different (FOV) protocols were as follows: face maxillofacial (FOV 20 × 17 cm) (MOSFET, 83.4 µSv; TLD, 87.6 µSv; -5%); teeth, upper jaw (FOV, 8.5 × 5.0 cm) (MOSFET, 6.1 µSv; TLD, 7.0 µSv; -14%); tooth, mandible and left molar (FOV, 4 × 5 cm) (MOSFET, 10.3 µSv; TLD, 12.3 µSv; -16%) and teeth, both jaws (FOV, 10 × 10 cm) (MOSFET, 175 µSv; TLD, 158 µSv; +11%). The largest variation in organ and effective dose was recorded in the small FOV protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account the uncertainties of both measurement methods and the results of the statistical analysis, the effective doses acquired using MOSFET dosemeters were found to be in good agreement with those obtained using TLD dosemeters. The MOSFET dosemeters constitute a feasible alternative for TLDs for the effective dose assessment of CBCT devices in the maxillofacial region.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) technology dosemeters with thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) (TLD 100; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) in the maxillofacial area. METHODS: Organ and effective dose measurements were performed using 40 TLD and 20 MOSFET dosemeters that were alternately placed in 20 different locations in 1 anthropomorphic RANDO(®) head phantom (the Phantom Laboratory, Salem, NY). The phantom was exposed to four different CBCT default maxillofacial protocols using small (4 × 5 cm) to full face (20 × 17 cm) fields of view (FOVs). RESULTS: The TLD effective doses ranged between 7.0 and 158.0 µSv and the MOSFET doses between 6.1 and 175.0 µSv. The MOSFET and TLD effective doses acquired using four different (FOV) protocols were as follows: face maxillofacial (FOV 20 × 17 cm) (MOSFET, 83.4 µSv; TLD, 87.6 µSv; -5%); teeth, upper jaw (FOV, 8.5 × 5.0 cm) (MOSFET, 6.1 µSv; TLD, 7.0 µSv; -14%); tooth, mandible and left molar (FOV, 4 × 5 cm) (MOSFET, 10.3 µSv; TLD, 12.3 µSv; -16%) and teeth, both jaws (FOV, 10 × 10 cm) (MOSFET, 175 µSv; TLD, 158 µSv; +11%). The largest variation in organ and effective dose was recorded in the small FOV protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account the uncertainties of both measurement methods and the results of the statistical analysis, the effective doses acquired using MOSFET dosemeters were found to be in good agreement with those obtained using TLD dosemeters. The MOSFET dosemeters constitute a feasible alternative for TLDs for the effective dose assessment of CBCT devices in the maxillofacial region.
Authors: Christian Ehringfeld; Susanne Schmid; Karin Poljanc; Christian Kirisits; Hannes Aiginger; Dietmar Georg Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-01-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sangroh Kim; David Sopko; Greta Toncheva; David Enterline; Bruno Keijzers; Terry T Yoshizumi Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Sebastian Tschauner; Robert Marterer; Eszter Nagy; Georg Apfaltrer; Michael Riccabona; Georg Singer; Georg Stücklschweiger; Helmuth Guss; Erich Sorantin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juha H Koivisto; Jan E Wolff; Timo Kiljunen; Dirk Schulze; Mika Kortesniemi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102