Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines: Cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines : Cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging. / Kadesjö, Nils; Lynds, Randi; Nilsson, Mats; Shi, Xie Qi.

In: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol. 47, No. 3, 20170305, 2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines

T2 - Cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging

AU - Kadesjö, Nils

AU - Lynds, Randi

AU - Nilsson, Mats

AU - Shi, Xie Qi

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - CBCT

KW - Effective dose

KW - Impacted canine

KW - Intraoral X-ray

KW - Panoramic X-ray

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042628325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/dmfr.20170305

DO - 10.1259/dmfr.20170305

M3 - Article

C2 - 29303367

AN - SCOPUS:85042628325

VL - 47

JO - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

JF - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

SN - 0250-832X

IS - 3

M1 - 20170305

ER -