Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 27, Issue 1 36-40, Copyright © 1998 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography: effect of beam energy on radiation exposure

T. T. Farman, A. G. Farman, M. S. Kelly, F. J. Firriolo, J. M. Yancey and A. V. Stewart
School of Dentistry, University of Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the consequences for entrance exposure of varying the beam energy and operating current for panoramic radiography using a charge-coupled device receptor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Images were made of a RANDO average man phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories, Stamford, CT) at kVcp settings of 60, 66, 70 and 80 and an mA of 2.0, 3.2, 6.4 and 10.0. The exposure cycle was set as recommended by the manufacturer at 17.6 s. Diagnostic image quality was rated by a panel of two oral and maxillofacial radiologists and one oral and maxillofacial pathologist. Entrance exposures were assessed using a 3 cc ionization chamber placed at the beam entry points while imaging the molar, premolar, and anterior teeth both using the DigiPan (Trophy Radiologie, Vincennes, France) CCD receptor and conventional T-Mat G film/Lanex Regular screens (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA). RESULTS: Acceptable image quality was attained with combinations of 60 kVcp and 3.2, 6.4 or 10 mA, 70 kVcp and 2.0, 3.2 or 6.4 mA; at 80 kVcp irrespective of the mA it was unacceptable. The maximum reduction in entrance dose was 77%, averaged over the three sites, at 70 kVcp and 2 mA. CONCLUSION: The DigiPan receptor produces satisfactory images with saving in entry exposure saving of approximately 70% when compared with a conventional film/rare earth screen combination.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G Kaeppler, K Dietz, and S Reinert Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2007; 36(2): 68 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Kaeppler, K Dietz, and S Reinert Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2007; 36(2): 75 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Kaeppler, K Dietz, and S Reinert The effect of dose reduction on the detection of anatomical structures on panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2006; 35(4): 271 - 277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F Gijbels, R Jacobs, R Bogaerts, D Debaveye, S Verlinden, and G Sanderink Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: patient exposure Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2005; 34(3): 145 - 149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Ekestubbe, A Thilander-Klang, A Lith, and H-G Grondahl Effective and organ doses from scanography and zonography: a comparison with periapical radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2004; 33(2): 87 - 92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Molander, H-G Grondahl, and A Ekestubbe Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2004; 33(1): 32 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]