:: Volume 25, Issue 4 (10-2013) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2013, 25(4): 223-228 Back to browse issues page
Comparison of the Absorbed Dose of Target Organs in Conventional and Digital Lateral Cephalometric Radiography
Ahmad reza Talaeipour1, Shirin Sakhdari2, Mansour Jaffarizadeh3, Maryam Mirzaei *4, Sahar Talebi5, Maziar Talaeipour6
1- Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of, Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Member of Scientific Board of Research School of Agriculture, Medicine and Industry, Nuclear Science and Technology Institute, Iran Nuclear Regulatory Authority. Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University. Tehran, Iran , maryam_m9237@yahoo.com
5- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University. Tehran, Iran
6- Assistant Professor, Department of, Periodentics, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (8077 Views)

  Background and Aim: Due to the widespread use of lateral cephalometric radiography especially in orthodontic therapy and orthognathic surgery, obtaining radiographs of high quality with the least amount of radiation exposure is of utmost importance. The aim of this study was to compare the absorbed dose of head and neck target organs in conventional and digital lateral cephalometric radiography .

  Materials and Methods : In this experimental study, RANDO phantom was used for absorbed dose estimation in thyroid, parotid, pituitary and submandibular glands, bone marrow and ocular lens. The phantom was exposed 60 times: 30 times with CRANEX Tome, Soredex and 30 times with CRANEX D, Soredex with standard exposure settings. TLD (GR-200) dosimeters were used to measure organ doses. A total of 69 TLDs were used with 9 TLDs for background radiation. T-test was used for statistical analysis .

  Results: The mean absorbed dose of target organs was 0.04±0.005 mSv for conventional and 0.01±0.002 mSv for digital technique. The difference in absorbed dose in all target organs except for the thyroid gland (P=0.08) between the two techniques of conventional and digital was statistically significant. (P=0.01 ).

  Conclusion: Use of digital lateral cephalometric system causes a significant reduction in absorbed dose compared to the conventional film-screen system

Keywords: Lateral cephalometric radiography, absorbed dose, conventional radiography, digital radiography
Full-Text [PDF 417 kb]   (2754 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
1. Bushong SC. Radiologic science for technolo-gists. Physics, biology and protection. 9th ed. United States: Mosby Inc; 2008, 415,550-566, 588, 621-623.
2. White SC, Pharaoh MJ. Oral radiology, princi-ples and interpretation. 6th ed. United States: Mosby Inc; 2009, 35-8,191-94.
3. Wall BF, Fisher ES, Paynter R, and Hudson A. Doses to patients from pantomographic and conventional dental radiography. Br J Radiol. 1979 Sep; 52:727-734.
4. Poppe B, Looe Hk , Pfaffenberger A, Chofor N, Eenboom F, Sering M, et al. Dose area product measurements in panoramic dental radiology. Radiat Protect Dosimet. 2007 Aug; 123(1):131-4.
5. Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Wyatt J, Van Dam J, Nowak B, Jacobs R. Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography. Br Dent J. 2004 Aug; 197(3):149-152.
6. Kaeppler G, Dietz k, Reinert S. Possibilities of dose reduction in lateral cephalometric radiographs and its effect on clinical diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Ra-didol. 2007 Jan; 36(1):39-44.
7. Visser H, Rodig T, Hermann KP. Dose reduc-tion by direct-digital cephalometric radiography. Angle Orthod. 2001 Jun; 71(3):159-63.
8. Gavala S, Donta C, Tsiklakis K, Boziari A, Ka-menopoulou V, Stamatakis HC. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiog-raphy. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Jul; 71(1):42-8.
9. Gijbels F, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Debaveye D, Verlinden S, Sanderink G. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part 1: Patient exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005 May: 34(3):145-9.
10. Bushberg JT. The essential physics of medical imaging, 2nd ed. Baltimore: 2001, [S.L]: Lip-pincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001, 405-408.
11. Whaites E. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. 4th ed. [S.L]: Churchill livingstone, Elsevier; 2007, 169-77.
12. Gijbels F, Serhal CB, Willems G, Bosmans H, Sanderink G, Persoons M, et al. Diagnostic yield of conventional and digital cephalometric imag-es. A human cadaver study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001 Jan: 30(2):101-105.
13. Theocharopoulos N, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Varveris H, Gourtsoyiannis N. Comparison of four methods for assessing patient effective dose from radiological examinations. Med Phys. 2002 Sep: 29(9):2070-9.
14. Seifert H, Kubale R, Hagen TH, Kramann B, Leetz HK. A study of dose reduction using digi-tal luminescence radiography for lateral skull radiography. Br J Radiol. 1996 April: 69(820):311-317.
15. Tsiklakis K, Donta-Bakoyanni C, Tassopoulou M, kamenopoulou V. Absorbed radiation dose during lateral cephalometric radiography: com-parison of screen-film systems and field size combinations. J Clin Pediat Dent. 2000 Winter; 24(2):117-21.

XML     Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 25, Issue 4 (10-2013) Back to browse issues page