4.3 Article

Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit

期刊

DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 229-234

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26310390

关键词

thermoluminescent dosimetry; tomography, X-ray computed; radiography, panoramic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study provides effective dose measurements for two extraoral direct digital imaging devices, the NewTom 9000(TM) cone beam CT (CBCT) unit and the Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Methods: Thermo luminescent dosemeters were placed at 20 sites throughout the layers of the head and neck of a tissue-equivalent RANDO phantom. Variations in phantom orientation and beam collimation were used to create three different CBCT examination techniques: a combined maxillary and mandibular scan (Max/Man), a maxillary scan and a mandibular scan. Ten exposures for each technique were used to ensure a reliable measure of radiation from the dosemeters. Average tissue-absorbed dose, weighted equivalent dose and effective dose were calculated for each major anatomical site. Effective doses of individual organs were summed with salivary gland exposures (E-SAL) and without salivary gland exposures (E-ICRP60) to calculate two measures of whole-body effective dose. Results: The effective doses for CBCT were: Max/Man scan, E-ICRP60 = 36.3 muSv, E-SAL = 77.9 muSv; maxillary scan, E-ICRP60 = 19.9 muSv, E-SAL = 41.5 muSv; and mandibular scan, E-ICRP60 = 34.7 muSv, E-SAL = 74.7 muSv. Effective doses for the panoramic examination were E-ICRP60 = 6.2 muSv and E-SAL = 22.0 muSv. Conclusion: When viewed in the context of potential diagnostic yield, the E-ICRP60 of 36.3 muSv for the NewTom compares favourably with published effective doses for conventional CT (314 muSv) and film tomography (2 - 9 muSv per image). CBCT examinations resulted in doses that were 3 - 7 (E-ICRP60) and 2-4 (E-SAL) times the panoramic doses observed in this study.

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

4.3
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