Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 30, Issue 5 255-259, Copyright © 2001 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography

A. R. Lecomber, Y. Yoneyama, D. J. Lovelock, T. Hosoi and A. M. Adams
Regional Medical Physics Department, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the radiation doses from imaging protocols for dental implant planning either using conventional radiography only (dental panoramic radiography (DPR), cephalometry and linear cross-sectional tomography) or involving computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Organ absorbed doses were measured using a female Rando anthropomorphic phantom loaded with lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLD). Standard mandibular protocols for dental implant planning were followed using either a conventional dental radiographic unit (PM 2002 CC Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) or CT scanner (Excel Twin Elscint, Haifa, Israel). Organ absorbed and effective doses were calculated. Effective dose was calculated using two approaches, one based on the ICRP method which excludes the salivary tissue from the remainder organs (designated E(exc)), and the other with its inclusion (E(inc)). RESULTS: The greatest individual organ doses for any examination were measured in the salivary tissue. E(exc) for panoramic, cephalometric and cross-sectional tomography using DPR was 0.004 mSv, 0.002 mSv and 0.002 mSv, respectively, whereas with CT it was 0.314 mSv. The value of E(inc) calculated using these data was between two and five times E(exc). CONCLUSIONS: E(inc) greatly increases the apparent radiation burden, especially with high dose procedures. CT techniques can provide excellent images, but at the cost of increased radiation detriment. DPR with a cross-sectional tomography facility may give adequate clinical information at a greatly reduced dose.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E Hirsch, U Wolf, F Heinicke, and M A G Silva Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2008; 37(5): 268 - 273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Olmez, E. Akin, and S. Karacay Multitomographic evaluation of the dental effects of two different rapid palatal expansion appliances Eur J Orthod, August 1, 2007; 29(4): 379 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C J Martin Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 639 - 647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Connor, T Arscott, J Berry, L Greene, and R O'Gorman Precision and accuracy of low-dose CT protocols in the evaluation of skull landmarks Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 36(5): 270 - 276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F Bousquet, P Bousquet, and L Vazquez Transtomography for implant placement guidance in non-invasive surgical procedures Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2007; 36(4): 229 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. K. Looe, F. Eenboom, N. Chofor, A. Pfaffenberger, M. Sering, A. Ruhmann, A. Poplawski, K. Willborn, and B. Poppe Dose-area product measurements and determination of conversion coefficients for the estimation of effective dose in dental lateral cephalometric radiology Radiat Prot Dosimetry, April 1, 2007; 124(2): 181 - 186. [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]

				J. Peltola and M Mattila Cross-sectional tomograms obtained with four panoramic radiographic units in the assessment of implant site measurements Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., September 1, 2004; 33(5): 295 - 300. [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]

				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]