DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lankipalli, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Mercier, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lankipalli, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Mercier, J. R.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 30, Issue 5 264-269, Copyright © 2001 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparison of five methods for the derivation of spectra for a constant potential dental X-ray unit

B. R. Lankipalli, W. D. McDavid, S. B. Dove, E. Wieckowska, R. G. Waggener and J. R. Mercier
University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas 78284-7919, USA.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic X-ray spectra derived by different methods for a constant potential dental X-ray unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five methods of deriving X-ray spectra for a constant potential dental X-ray unit were compared: measurement by spectrometer using cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) detector, calculation by Monte Carlo simulation, calculation by two different, semi-empirical methods and estimation from transmission data. The dental X-ray set was a Heliodent MD unit (Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) operable at 60 or 70 kV. A semiconductor detector was used in the spectrometer measurements and an ionization chamber dosimeter in the transmission measurements. From the five methods, photon-fluence spectra were derived. Based on the photon-fluence spectra, average energies and transmission curves in aluminum were calculated. RESULTS: For all five methods, the average energies were within 2.4% of one another. Comparison of the transmission curves showed an average difference in the range of 1 to 6%. CONCLUSION: All of the five methods of deriving spectra are in extremely good agreement with each other.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2001 by the British Institute of Radiology.