Elton G Zenóbio1, Madelon Af Zenóbio2, Carolina Db Azevedo3, Maria do Socorro Nogueira2, Cláudio D Almeida4, Flávio R Manzi5. 1. 1 PhD, Implantology - Associate Professor Master's Program, PUC Minas (Pontifical Catholic University) , Belo Horizonte, MG , Brazil. 2. 2 PhD, UFMG - CDTN - Associate Professor, Center for Nuclear Development of Nuclear Technologies , Belo Horizonte , Brazil. 3. 3 Ms, Clinical Dentistry - Master's Program, PUC Minas, (Pontifical Catholic University) , Belo Horizonte, MG , Brazil. 4. 4 PhD, Medicine Radiology UFRJ , Rio de Janeiro, RJ , Brazil. 5. 5 PhD, Radiology - Associate Professor Master's Program, PUC Minas, (Pontifical Catholic University) , Belo Horizonte, MG , Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To evaluate the exposure parameters, radiation protection, absorbed dose and radiographic image quality of the DIOX® intraoral portable radiography device. METHODS: : The exposure parameters were measured using the Xi UNFORS detector. Operator exposure to secondary radiation was measured using the 1800cc ionization chamber coupled to the electrometer. The absorbed dose (D) in the patient was calculated using TLD-100H positioned in the Alderson RANDO anthropomorphic simulator. The quality of the radiographic digital image was assessed by comparing radiographic images obtained from two conventional devices (CS 2200®, Carestream Health; Heliodent plus®, Sirona Dental Systems GMbH) with the radiological simulator of the upper molar region RMI (Radiation Measurements Instruments), using three acquisition sensors: Kodak RVG 5000® and Kodak PSP®, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY; EVO Micro Image®, Brazil. RESULTS: : The DIOX intraoral portable radiographic device demonstrated reliability in relation to the performance of the standard evaluated parameters, except for the diameter of the radiation field (5.8 mm) less or greater. No evidence of device head radiation was detected. The Pb lead protection of the apparatus attenuates the secondary radiation, thus protecting the operator. However, it was observed that the region of the operator's gonads was the most exposed during the measurements. In the Alderson RANDO anthropomorphic simulator, the highest value of D was in the region corresponding to the submandibular and lingual glands of the left side (0.568 mGy). The image quality of the DIOX portable radiographic apparatus presented quality standards equivalent to those produced by the two conventional radiographic devices. CONCLUSION: : The DIOX intraoral portable radiography device demonstrated reliability in relation to the quality control and radioprotection criteria, according to international standards. Results obtained demonstrated the safe use of the DIOX intraoral portable radiography device and indicated the need for debate and change in international sanitary oversight standards regarding the use of portable XR devices in dentistry.
OBJECTIVE: : To evaluate the exposure parameters, radiation protection, absorbed dose and radiographic image quality of the DIOX® intraoral portable radiography device. METHODS: : The exposure parameters were measured using the Xi UNFORS detector. Operator exposure to secondary radiation was measured using the 1800cc ionization chamber coupled to the electrometer. The absorbed dose (D) in the patient was calculated using TLD-100H positioned in the Alderson RANDO anthropomorphic simulator. The quality of the radiographic digital image was assessed by comparing radiographic images obtained from two conventional devices (CS 2200®, Carestream Health; Heliodent plus®, Sirona Dental Systems GMbH) with the radiological simulator of the upper molar region RMI (Radiation Measurements Instruments), using three acquisition sensors: Kodak RVG 5000® and Kodak PSP®, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY; EVO Micro Image®, Brazil. RESULTS: : The DIOX intraoral portable radiographic device demonstrated reliability in relation to the performance of the standard evaluated parameters, except for the diameter of the radiation field (5.8 mm) less or greater. No evidence of device head radiation was detected. The Pb lead protection of the apparatus attenuates the secondary radiation, thus protecting the operator. However, it was observed that the region of the operator's gonads was the most exposed during the measurements. In the Alderson RANDO anthropomorphic simulator, the highest value of D was in the region corresponding to the submandibular and lingual glands of the left side (0.568 mGy). The image quality of the DIOX portable radiographic apparatus presented quality standards equivalent to those produced by the two conventional radiographic devices. CONCLUSION: : The DIOX intraoral portable radiography device demonstrated reliability in relation to the quality control and radioprotection criteria, according to international standards. Results obtained demonstrated the safe use of the DIOX intraoral portable radiography device and indicated the need for debate and change in international sanitary oversight standards regarding the use of portable XR devices in dentistry.
Authors: Elton G Zenóbio; Madelon A F Zenóbio; Maria S Nogueira; Teógenes A Silva; Jamil A Shibli Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: W E R Berkhout; A Suomalainen; D Brüllmann; R Jacobs; K Horner; H C Stamatakis Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 2.419