Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Patient radiation dose and protection from cone-beam computed tomography

  • Li, Gang (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology)
  • Received : 2013.01.28
  • Accepted : 2013.03.11
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

After over one decade development, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been widely accepted for clinical application in almost every field of dentistry. Meanwhile, the radiation dose of CBCT to patient has also caused broad concern. According to the literature, the effective radiation doses of CBCTs in nowadays market fall into a considerably wide range that is from $19{\mu}Sv$ to $1073{\mu}Sv$ and closely related to the imaging detector, field of view, and voxel sizes used for scanning. To deeply understand the potential risk from CBCT, this report also reviewed the effective doses from literatures on intra-oral radiograph, panoramic radiograph, lateral and posteroanterior cephalometric radiograph, multi-slice CT, and so on. The protection effect of thyroid collar and leaded glasses were also reviewed.

Keywords

References

  1. 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: 229-34. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/26310390
  2. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 83-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28403350
  3. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 2005; 56: 413-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.05.011
  4. 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: 219-26. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14340323
  5. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 106-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018
  6. Palomo JM, Rao PS, Hans MG. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 773-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.019
  7. Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Ekestubbe A, Helmrot E, Grondahl K. Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D Accuitomo and 3D Accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 72-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/60375385
  8. Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MA. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 268-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/23424132
  9. 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: 367- https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15779208
  10. Chau AC, Fung K. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 559-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.009
  11. Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/31419627
  12. 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: 461-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002
  13. Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: 770-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.06.013
  14. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028
  15. Thilander-Klang A, Helmrot E. Methods of determining the effective in dental radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139: 306-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq081
  16. Davies J, Johnson B, Drage NA. Effective doses from cone beam CT investigation of the jaws. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 30-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30177908
  17. Grünheid T, Kolbeck Schieck JR, Pliska BT, Ahmad M, Larson BE. Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 436-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.024
  18. Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 640.e1-5.
  19. SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Comminssion Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
  20. Danforth RA, Clark DE. Effective dose from radiation absorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89: 236-43. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.103526
  21. Gijbels F, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Debaveye D, Verlinden S, Sanderink G. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: Patient exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005; 34: 145-9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28107460
  22. Gavala S, Donta C, Tsiklakis K, Boziari A, Kamenopoulou V, Stamatakis HC. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71: 42-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.03.018
  23. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-43. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339
  24. Visser H, Rödig T, Hermann KP. Dose reduction by directdigital cephalometric radiography. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 159-63.
  25. 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; 197: 149-52. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811532
  26. Gibbs SJ. Effective dose equivalent and effective dose: comparison for common projections in oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 90: 538-45. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2000.109189
  27. Qu XM, Li G, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Comparative dosimetry of dental cone-beam computed tomography and multi-slice computed tomography for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2011; 46: 595-9.
  28. Qu XM, Li G, Sanderink GC, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Dose reduction of cone beam CT scanning for the entire oral and maxillofacial regions with thyroid collars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012: 41: 373-8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30200901
  29. Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X. Thyroid shields for radiation dose reduction during cone beam computed tomography scanning for different oral and maxillofacial regions. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: e376-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.11.048
  30. Prins R, Dauer LT, Colosi DC, Quinn B, Kleiman NJ, Bohle GC, et al. Significant reduction in dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) eye dose through the use of leaded glasses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: 502-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.04.041

Cited by

  1. The effective dose of different scanning protocols using the Sirona GALILEOS®comfort CBCT scanner vol.44, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140287
  2. Assessment of Head Shape by Craniofacial Teams: Structuring Practice Parameters to Optimize Efficiency vol.26, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000001948
  3. Digital Imaging Capability for Caries Detection : A Meta-analysis vol.1, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084416645291
  4. Radiation exposure to foetus and breasts from dental X-ray examinations: effect of lead shields. vol.45, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150095
  5. Cone Beam CT Versus Multislice CT: Radiologic Diagnostic Agreement in the Postoperative Assessment of Cochlear Implantation vol.37, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000001165
  6. Ionizing Radiation in Craniofacial Surgery: A Primer on Dose and Risks vol.54, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1597/15-350
  7. Morphometric Analysis of Sella Turcica Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography vol.28, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003223
  8. Evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of two cone beam computed tomography protocols in reliably detecting the location of the inferior alveolar nerve canal vol.46, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160389
  9. Cytogenetic biomonitoring in individuals exposed to cone beam CT: comparison among exfoliated buccal mucosa cells, cells of tongue and epithelial gingival cells vol.46, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160413
  10. Photons – Radiobiological issues related to the risk of second malignancies vol.42, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.02.013
  11. Flat Panel Angiography in the Cross-Sectional Imaging of the Temporal Bone: Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Dose Compared with a 64-Section Multisection CT Scanner vol.38, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a5302
  12. Absorbed doses in salivary and thyroid glands from panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography vol.34, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1590/2446-4740.03717
  13. Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Based Anatomical Assessment of the Olfactory Fossa vol.2019, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4134260
  14. Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary sinus volume in different age and sex groups using CBCT vol.276, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05383-y
  15. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics vol.53, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0301574219861789
  16. Indocyanine green-assisted dental imaging in the first and second near‐infrared windows as compared with X‐ray imaging vol.1448, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14086
  17. Method validation to assess in vivo cellular and subcellular changes in buccal mucosa cells and saliva following CBCT examinations vol.48, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180428
  18. Trends in Alveolar Bone Grafting and the Use of Recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Protein (RhBMP) in the United States vol.10, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/2320206819863938
  19. Age estimation using pulp/enamel volume ratio of impacted mandibular third molars measured on CBCT images in a northern Chinese population vol.133, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02112-2
  20. Extremity CT and ultrasound in the assessment of ankle injuries: occult fractures and ligament injuries vol.93, pp.1105, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180989
  21. Morphometric analysis of occipital condyles using alternative imaging technique vol.42, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02344-2
  22. An unusual and severe presentation of rheumatoid arthritis in the temporomandibular joint vol.13, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/ors.12480
  23. EVALUATION OF RADIATION PROTECTION PRINCIPLES OBSERVANCE IN DENTAL RADIOGRAPHY CENTERS (WEST OF IRAN): CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY vol.190, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncaa071
  24. Image denoising by transfer learning of generative adversarial network for dental CT vol.6, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/abb068
  25. Imaging Anatomy of the Jaw and Dentition with Cone Beam Computed Tomography vol.24, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701494
  26. The accuracy of age estimation from pulp chamber/crown volume ratio of canines obtained by cone beam computed tomography images: an Egyptian study vol.10, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-020-00212-4
  27. Review of the radiographic modalities used during dental implant therapy - A narrative vol.76, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2021/v76no2a4
  28. Comparison of Surface Equivalent Dose in CBCT, Digital Panoramic and Intra-Oral X-Ray Generators Using InstadoseTM Device: An In-Vitro Study vol.15, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210602115010689
  29. Thermoluminescent dosimetry of panoramic radiography vol.45, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.21851/obr.45.01.202103.22
  30. Radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging: should we be concerned? vol.50, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210153
  31. Dosimetric evaluation for temporomandibular joint cone beam computed tomography exams using different field of view vol.7, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ac240a
  32. Exploration of the Influences of Temporary Velum Paralysis on Auditory-Perceptual, Acoustic, and Tomographical Markers vol.64, pp.11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00587
  33. Evaluating cochlear insertion trauma and hearing preservation after cochlear implantation (CIPRES): a study protocol for a randomized single-blind controlled trial vol.22, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05878-2