BACKGROUND: The National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurements has reinforced its recommendation for the use of rectangular collimation for intraoral radiography in its Report No. 177 published in 2019. This study compared effective dose (E) using circular and rectangular collimator (RC) modalities. METHODS: The authors exposed 18 projections for adult and 12 projections for child full-mouth series using an original equipment 6 centimeter diameter circular collimator (circular), original equipment rectangular positioning indicator device (Focus-RC), and 5 universal RC modalities (JadRad-RC, Rinn-RC, Durr-RC, DEXshield-RC, and TruAlign-RC) for adult and child phantoms. The authors acquired dosimetry using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters. Exposures were made with a Focus (Instrumentarium) intraoral source using 70 peak kilovoltage and total milliamperes of 5.34 (adult) and 2.7 (child). RESULTS: Adult E was lowest for Focus-RC (54 microsieverts), which also produced the greatest exposure area reduction (51%) compared with circular, followed by JadRad-RC (55 μSv), Durr-RC (58 μSv), Rinn-RC (62 μSv), DEXshield-RC (70 μSv), TruAlign-RC (85 μSv), and circular (86 μSv). Child E followed a similar trend: Focus-RC (44 μSv), JadRad-RC (44 μSv), Durr-RC (45 μSv), Rinn-RC (48 μSv), DEXshield-RC (53 μSv), TruAlign-RC (85 μSv), and circular (89 μSv). When used with thyroid shielding, circular collimation thyroid dose was reduced by as much as 59%. CONCLUSIONS: Focus-RC techniques yielded the greatest dose reduction compared with alternative RC and circular. In addition to shape, collimator dimensions should be considered as significant factors affecting patient E. RC alone yielded a greater reduction in thyroid dose than did circular with thyroid shielding. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study's findings underscore the updated recommendations of the National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No.177, which emphasized the benefits and important practical considerations of RC with intraoral imaging.
BACKGROUND: The National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurements has reinforced its recommendation for the use of rectangular collimation for intraoral radiography in its Report No. 177 published in 2019. This study compared effective dose (E) using circular and rectangular collimator (RC) modalities. METHODS: The authors exposed 18 projections for adult and 12 projections for child full-mouth series using an original equipment 6 centimeter diameter circular collimator (circular), original equipment rectangular positioning indicator device (Focus-RC), and 5 universal RC modalities (JadRad-RC, Rinn-RC, Durr-RC, DEXshield-RC, and TruAlign-RC) for adult and child phantoms. The authors acquired dosimetry using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters. Exposures were made with a Focus (Instrumentarium) intraoral source using 70 peak kilovoltage and total milliamperes of 5.34 (adult) and 2.7 (child). RESULTS: Adult E was lowest for Focus-RC (54 microsieverts), which also produced the greatest exposure area reduction (51%) compared with circular, followed by JadRad-RC (55 μSv), Durr-RC (58 μSv), Rinn-RC (62 μSv), DEXshield-RC (70 μSv), TruAlign-RC (85 μSv), and circular (86 μSv). Child E followed a similar trend: Focus-RC (44 μSv), JadRad-RC (44 μSv), Durr-RC (45 μSv), Rinn-RC (48 μSv), DEXshield-RC (53 μSv), TruAlign-RC (85 μSv), and circular (89 μSv). When used with thyroid shielding, circular collimation thyroid dose was reduced by as much as 59%. CONCLUSIONS: Focus-RC techniques yielded the greatest dose reduction compared with alternative RC and circular. In addition to shape, collimator dimensions should be considered as significant factors affecting patient E. RC alone yielded a greater reduction in thyroid dose than did circular with thyroid shielding. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study's findings underscore the updated recommendations of the National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No.177, which emphasized the benefits and important practical considerations of RC with intraoral imaging.
Authors: Peter Hiles; Patrick Gilligan; John Damilakis; Eric Briers; Cristian Candela-Juan; Dario Faj; Shane Foley; Guy Frija; Claudio Granata; Hugo de Las Heras Gala; Ruben Pauwels; Marta Sans Merce; Georgios Simantirakis; Eliseo Vano Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-12-23