Christina Granlund1, Anne Thilander-Klang2,3, Betȕl Ylhan4, Sara Lofthag-Hansen5, Annika Ekestubbe1. 1. 1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. 2 Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. 3 Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. 4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. 5. 5 Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Public Dental Service, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: During dental radiography, the salivary and thyroid glands are at radiation risk. In 2007, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) updated the methodology for determining the effective dose, and the salivary glands were assigned tissue-specific weighting factors for the first time. The aims of this study were to determine the absorbed dose to the organs and to calculate, applying the ICRP publication 103 tissue-weighting factors, the effective doses delivered during digital intraoral and panoramic radiography. METHODS: Thermoluminescent dosemeter measurements were performed on an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom. The organ-absorbed doses were measured at 30 locations, representing different radiosensitive organs in the head and neck, and the effective dose was calculated according to the ICRP recommendations. RESULTS: The salivary glands and the oral mucosa received the highest absorbed doses from both intraoral and panoramic radiography. The effective dose from a full-mouth intraoral examination was 15 μSv and for panoramic radiography, the effective dose was in the range of 19-75 μSv, depending on the panoramic equipment used. CONCLUSION: The effective dose from a full-mouth intraoral examination is lower and that from panoramic radiography is higher than previously reported. Clinicians should be aware of the higher effective dose delivered during panoramic radiography and the risk-benefit profile of this technique must be assessed for the individual patient. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The effective dose of radiation from panoramic radiography is higher than previously reported and there is large variability in the delivered radiation dosage among the different types of equipment used.
OBJECTIVE: During dental radiography, the salivary and thyroid glands are at radiation risk. In 2007, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) updated the methodology for determining the effective dose, and the salivary glands were assigned tissue-specific weighting factors for the first time. The aims of this study were to determine the absorbed dose to the organs and to calculate, applying the ICRP publication 103 tissue-weighting factors, the effective doses delivered during digital intraoral and panoramic radiography. METHODS: Thermoluminescent dosemeter measurements were performed on an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom. The organ-absorbed doses were measured at 30 locations, representing different radiosensitive organs in the head and neck, and the effective dose was calculated according to the ICRP recommendations. RESULTS: The salivary glands and the oral mucosa received the highest absorbed doses from both intraoral and panoramic radiography. The effective dose from a full-mouth intraoral examination was 15 μSv and for panoramic radiography, the effective dose was in the range of 19-75 μSv, depending on the panoramic equipment used. CONCLUSION: The effective dose from a full-mouth intraoral examination is lower and that from panoramic radiography is higher than previously reported. Clinicians should be aware of the higher effective dose delivered during panoramic radiography and the risk-benefit profile of this technique must be assessed for the individual patient. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The effective dose of radiation from panoramic radiography is higher than previously reported and there is large variability in the delivered radiation dosage among the different types of equipment used.
Authors: B Poppe; H K Looe; A Pfaffenberger; F Eenboom; N Chofor; M Sering; A Rühmann; A Poplawski; K Willborn Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2006-09-13 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Elton G Zenóbio; Madelon Af Zenóbio; Carolina Db Azevedo; Maria do Socorro Nogueira; Cláudio D Almeida; Flávio R Manzi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 2.419