Nils Kadesjö1,2, Randi Lynds3,4, Mats Nilsson5, Xie-Qi Shi1,4. 1. 1 Department of Dental medicine, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden. 2. Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Folktandvården, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. 4 Department of Clinical Dentistry, University of Bergen , Bergen , Norway. 5. Medical Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiation dose to children examined for impacted canines, using two-dimensional (2D) examinations (panoramic and periapical radiographs) and cone beam CT (CBCT). METHODS: Organ doses were determined using an anthropomorphic 10-year-old child phantom. Two CBCT devices, a ProMax3D and a NewTom5G, were examined using thermoluminescent dosimeters. For the panoramic radiograph, a Promax device was used and for periapical radiographs, a Prostyle device with a ProSensor digital sensor was used. Both the panoramic and the intraoral devices were examined using Gafchromic-QR2 dosimetric film placed between the phantom slices. RESULTS: ProMax3D and NewTom5G resulted in an effective dose of 88 µSv and 170 µSv respectively. A panoramic radiograph resulted in an effective dose of 4.1 µSv, while a periapical radiograph resulted in an effective dose of 0.6 µSv and 0.7 µSv using a maxillary lateral projection and central maxillary incisor projection respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose from CBCT ranged from 140 times higher dose (NewTom5G compared to two periapical radiographs) to 15 times higher dose (ProMax3D compared to three periapical and one panoramic radiograph) than a 2D examination.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiation dose to children examined for impacted canines, using two-dimensional (2D) examinations (panoramic and periapical radiographs) and cone beam CT (CBCT). METHODS: Organ doses were determined using an anthropomorphic 10-year-old child phantom. Two CBCT devices, a ProMax3D and a NewTom5G, were examined using thermoluminescent dosimeters. For the panoramic radiograph, a Promax device was used and for periapical radiographs, a Prostyle device with a ProSensor digital sensor was used. Both the panoramic and the intraoral devices were examined using Gafchromic-QR2 dosimetric film placed between the phantom slices. RESULTS: ProMax3D and NewTom5G resulted in an effective dose of 88 µSv and 170 µSv respectively. A panoramic radiograph resulted in an effective dose of 4.1 µSv, while a periapical radiograph resulted in an effective dose of 0.6 µSv and 0.7 µSv using a maxillary lateral projection and central maxillary incisor projection respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dose from CBCT ranged from 140 times higher dose (NewTom5G compared to two periapical radiographs) to 15 times higher dose (ProMax3D compared to three periapical and one panoramic radiograph) than a 2D examination.
Authors: Samuel Rodríguez-López; Matías Ferrán Escobedo Martínez; Luis Junquera; María García-Pola Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mousa Zidan; Franz S Schwindling; Alexander Juerchott; Johannes Mente; Holger Gehrig; Mathias Nittka; Zahra Hosseini; Johann M E Jende; Sabine Heiland; Martin Bendszus; Tim Hilgenfeld Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Amanda K H Andresen; Malin V Jonsson; Gerhard Sulo; Dorina S Thelen; Xie-Qi Shi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 2.419