3.8 Article

Uses of cone-beam computed tomography in San Jose, Costa Rica

期刊

IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 103-109

出版社

KOREAN ACAD ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.2.103

关键词

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Protection

资金

  1. University of Costa Rica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To analyze cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) use, indications, and exposure parameters in San Jose, Costa Rica. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. All CBCT examinations over a period of 6 months at 2 radiological centers in San Jose, Costa Rica were evaluated. The examinations were performed with Veraview EPOC X550 and Veraviewepocs 3D R100 equipment. The patients' age and sex, clinical indication for CBCT, region of interest (ROI), repeat examinations, specialty of the referring dentist, field-of-view (FOV), tube voltage (kV), tube current (mA), and radiation dose (mu Gy) were evaluated. Patients were classified by age as children (<= 12 years), adolescents (13-18 years), and adults (>= 19 years). Results: The mean age of the 526 patients was 49.4 years. The main indications were implant dentistry and dental trauma. The most frequent ROIs were posterior, while anterior ROIs were much less common. The highest percentage of repeat examinations was in children. Fifty-six percent of the referring dentists were specialists. The most commonly used FOV was small. The mean tube voltage and current were 79.8 kV and 7.4 mA for Veraview EPOC X550 and 89.9 kV and 6 mA for Veraviewepocs 3D R100, respectively. The mean doses for children, adolescents, and adults were 6.9 mu Gy, 8.4 mu Gy, and 7.8 mu Gy, respectively. Conclusion: Although CBCT was most commonly used in adults for implant dentistry, most repeat examinations were in children, and the highest mean dose was in adolescents. Additional dose optimization efforts should be made by introducing low-dose protocols for children and adolescents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据