Comparison of the Absorbed Doses of Eyes, Thyroid and Parotid Glands in Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Panoramic Examinations Using CRANEX® 3D

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 MSc Student, Department of Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 Educator, Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Ira

Abstract

Background: As the application of the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is increasing in dental radiology and the departments with this equipment are developing, it seems that the determination of absorbed dose and evaluation of ionizing radiation risk from CBCT is essential. In this study, the absorbed dose of eyes, thyroid and parotid glands were compared in both examinations of dental CBCT and panoramic with CRANEX® 3D machine.Methods: For each patient, 5 thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLDs) were placed as a pair in the back of upper eyelids, a pair 2 cm ahead of small anterior ear cartilage and the last one in the middle of neck on a prominence. The average absorbed dose was calculated for comparison of absorbed doses of different organs in two examinations.Findings: In panoramic examination, right eye with 0.020 ± 0.002 cGy and right parotid with 0.283 ± 0.053 cGy had the lowest and the highest mean absorbed doses, respectively. In CBCT examination, the highest and the lowest mean doses belonged to the right parotid (0.465 ± 0.078) and the left eye (0.0311 ± 0.004), respectively. Mean absorbed doses for eyes, parotid and thyroid in panoramic was 0.022 ± 0.002, 0.270 ± 0.051, 0.027 ± 0.002 and in CBCT 0.033 ± 0.005, 4.410 ± 0.740, 0.0389 ± 0.051, respectively. The absorbed doses show meaningful differences for all organs in two examinations (P ˂ 0.001 for all).Conclusion: Because of the wider beam (cone beam) and higher exposure factors in CBCT, the absorbed doses in this examination are higher than those of panoramic examination (more than 10 times).

Keywords

References

  1. Makhija G, Makhija P. Integrating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dentistry-review. Bhavnagar University's Journal of Dentistry 2013; 1(3): 48-55.
  2. Broadbent BH. A new X-ray technique and its application to orthodontia. The Angle Orthodontist 1931; 1(2): 45-66.
  3. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol 1973; 46(552): 1016-22.
  4. Cavalcanti MG, Vannier MW. Quantitative analysis of spiral computed tomography for craniofacial clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27(6): 344-50.
  5. Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, Sindet-Pedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997; 34(2): 111-6.
  6. Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Proffit WR. Working with DICOM craniofacial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136(3): 460-70.
  7. Chidiac JJ, Shofer FS, Al-Kutoub A, Laster LL, Ghafari J. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2002; 5(2): 104-13.
  8. Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130(3): 410-6.
  9. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10(1): 1-7.
  10. Hamada Y, Kondoh T, Noguchi K, Iino M, Isono H, Ishii H, et al. Application of limited cone beam computed tomography to clinical assessment of alveolar bone grafting: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42(2): 128-37.
  11. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103(1): 114-9.
  12. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol 2006; 77(7): 1261-6.
  13. Honda K, Larheim TA, Maruhashi K, Matsumoto K, Iwai K. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on an autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35(3): 152-7.
  14. Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30(6): 1088-95.
  15. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32(4): 229-34.
  16. Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent 2009; 2009: 634567.
  17. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35(4): 219-26.
  18. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71(3): 461-8.
  19. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38(6): 367-78.
  20. Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W. Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Rofo 2011; 183(2): 144-53. [In German].
  21. Guldner C, Ningo A, Voigt J, Diogo I, Heinrichs J, Weber R, et al. Potential of dosage reduction in cone-beam-computed tomography (CBCT) for radiological diagnostics of the paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270(4): 1307-15.
  22. Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, Pauwels R, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1010): 153-60.
  23. Power M. Solar 2A operator’s manual. Berkshire, UK: Ne technology limited; 1995. p. 89.
  24. Sun Z, Ng KH. Multislice CT angiography in cardiac imaging. Part III: radiation risk and dose reduction. Singapore Med J 2010; 51(5): 374-80.
  25. Wrixon AD. New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot 2008; 28(2): 161-8.
  26. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 6th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby/Elsevier; 2009. p. 260-2.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 34, Issue 401 - Serial Number 401
September and October 2016
Pages 1151-1159

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 June 2016
  • Revise Date: 01 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics