DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frederiksen, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Sokolowski, T. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frederiksen, N. L.
Right arrow Articles by Sokolowski, T. W.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 23, Issue 3 123-127, Copyright © 1994 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Effective dose and risk assessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics

N. L. Frederiksen, B. W. Benson and T. W. Sokolowski
Baylor College of Dentistry, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.

There are no data relating complex film tomography with effective dose that may be used to estimate the relative risk associated with dental implant diagnostics. The purpose of this study was to calculate the effective dose and estimate risk from the use of the Scanora multimodal imaging system. With the use of a tissue equivalent human phantom and thermoluminescent dosimetry, panoramic radiography was found to result in an effective dose of 26 microSv, while complex film tomography resulted in an effective dose of < 1 microSv to 30 microSv depending on the anatomical location of the imaging plane and the collimation option. An effective dose of this magnitude for panoramic radiography was estimated to represent a probability for stochastic effects on the order of 1.9 x 10(-6). Similarly, the effective dose associated with film tomography may be estimated to be equal to a probability for stochastic effects in the range of << 1 x 10(-6) to 2.2 x 10(-6).


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
G. Kaeppler, M. Buchgeister, and S. Reinert
Influence of the rotation centre in panoramic radiography
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, January 1, 2008; 128(2): 239 - 244.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
H Hintze, M Wiese, and A Wenzel
Cone beam CT and conventional tomography for the detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2007; 36(4): 192 - 197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
W. Moore and J. W. Preece
RADIOGRAPHY AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT
J Am Dent Assoc, July 1, 2004; 135(7): 850 - 853.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
A Ekestubbe, H-G Grondahl, and B Molander
Quality of digital pre-implant tomography: comparison of film-screen images with storage phosphor images at normal and low dose
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., September 1, 2003; 32(5): 322 - 326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
J. Ludlow, L. Davies-Ludlow, and S. Brooks
Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2003; 32(4): 229 - 234.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1994 by the British Institute of Radiology.