Radiation Exposure to Critical Organs in Panoramic Dental Examination
Nowadays, radiography is a necessary procedure in diagnosis and treatment of patients with dental problems. According to the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle, dentists must take radiographs of sufficient quality at the lowest possible radiation dose to the patients. The assessment of patient dose on panoramic radiography is difficult because of dynamic nature of the imaging process and the narrow width of the x-ray beam. The present work describes an experiment undertaken using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD-100) to obtain the absorbed dose in organs and sensitive tissues in head and neck region during panoramic radiography, based on patient measurement. The overall mean entrance surface dose on thyroid, right and left lens of eyes, parotid glands (right and left) and occipital region in panoramic were 38, negligible, negligible, 367, 319 and 262 μGy, respectively. The results show that there are differences between patient doses examined by different panoramic systems. There is a tendency for lower organ doses for digital compared with analogue panoramic units.
Chougule A. Reference Doses in Radiological Imaging. Pol J Med Phys Eng. 2005;11(2):115-26.
Looe H, Pfaffenberger A, Chofor N, Eenboom F, Sering M, Rühmann A, et al. Radiation exposure to children in intraoral dental radiology. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2006;121(4):461.
Danforth R, Clark D. Effective dose from radiation absorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology & Endodontics. 2000;89(2):236-43.
Kaeppler G, Buchgeister M, Reinert S. Influence of the rotation center in panoramic radiography. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2008;128(2):239-44.
Melgar J, Martín C, Montes C, Sáez F, Collado P, Gómez P. Radiation doses in dental panoramic tomography 2001.
Mortazavi S, Ghiassi N, Bakhshi M, Jafarizadeh M, Kavousi A, Ahmadi J, Shareghi A. Entrance Surface Dose Measurement on the Thyroid Gland in Orthopantomography: The Need for Optimization. Iranian Journal of Radiation Research (IJRR) 2004;2(1):21-6.
Wall B, Hart D. Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations. Report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. National Radiological Protection Board. Br J Radiol 1997;70(833):437.
ICRP, 2007. Radiation Protection in medicine. ICRP Publication 105. Ann. ICRP 37(6).
Registration requirements and industry best practice for ionizing radiation apparatus used in diagnostic imaging. Radiation Guideline 6: part 3- dentistry (including maxillofacial), (2001). available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/radiation/de ntistry.pdf. accessed January 15, 2013.
Thyroid cancer and other thyroid diseases and exposure to ionizing radiation. available from: http://www.clarku.edu/mtafund/prodlib/jsi/jsi.htm. accessed January 15, 2013.
Talaeipour A, Sahba S. Comparison between absorbed doses in targat organs in panoramic radiography, using single emullsion and double emulsion films. Acta Medica Iranica. 2007;45(3);171-6.
Brown NA, Shun-Shin GA, Lewis P, Cramp WA, Arlett C, Cole J, Waugh AP, Stephens G. Relationship of cataract to radiation sensitivity. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73(12):955-9.
Brennan J. An introduction to digital radiography in dentistry. Journal of Orthodontics. 2002;29(1):66-9.
Bartolotta A, Calenda E, Calicchia A, Indovina P. Dental orthopantomography: survey of patient dose. Radiology;(United States). 1983;146(3).821-3.
González L, Vañó E, Fernández R. Reference doses in dental radiodiagnostic facilities. Br J Radiol 2001;74:153-6.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.