| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
RESEARCH |
1 Department of Oral Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 3 Department of Radiation Therapy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 4 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
*Correspondence to: Dr Dirk Schulze, Department of Oral Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, D- 20246 Hamburg, Germany; Email: dschulze{at}uke.uni-hamburg.de
Received 14 June 2003; revised 24 February 2004; accepted 24 February 2004
Objectives: Radiation doses were determined to balance risks against usefulness of the different modalities available for the imaging of the facial skeleton.
Methods: An Alderson Rando Phantom, armed with lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) was exposed using a set of four conventional radiographs (orbital view, modified Waters view, orthopantomography, skull posterior–anterior 0°), two different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (NewTom 9000 and Siremobil Iso-C3D), and multislice computed tomography (CT) modalities (Somatom VolumeZoom and Somatom Sensation 16). TLDs from 14 well defined anatomical sites lying within the primary beam as well as the TLD corresponding to the thyroid gland were evaluated.
Results: Multislice CT showed the highest exposure values. Exposure levels of the CBCT sytems lay between CT and conventional radiography. Dose measurement for the 16-slice CT revealed nearly the same radiation exposure as the 4-slice system when adapted examination protocols were used.
Conclusions: Selection of the most appropriate imaging modality should be performed in view of the delivered doses, required image quality and information and the clinical circumstances.
Keywords: radiation exposure; computed tomography; cone beam computed tomography; conventional radiography
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A. Alcala-Galiano, I. J. Arribas-Garcia, M. A. Martin-Perez, A. Romance, J. J. Montalvo-Moreno, and J. M. M. Juncos Pediatric Facial Fractures: Children Are Not Just Small Adults RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 441 - 461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Stratemann, J. Huang, K Maki, A. Miller, and D. Hatcher Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., February 1, 2008; 37(2): 80 - 93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Suomalainen, T Vehmas, M Kortesniemi, S Robinson, and J Peltola Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2008; 37(1): 10 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Draenert, E Coppenrath, P Herzog, S Muller, and U. Mueller-Lisse Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom(R) cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., May 1, 2007; 36(4): 198 - 203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. Kau, S. Richmond, J. M. Palomo, and M. G. Hans Current Products and Practice: Three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in orthodontics J. Orthod., December 1, 2005; 32(4): 282 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Heiland, R Schmelzle, A Hebecker, and D Schulze Intraoperative 3D imaging of the facial skeleton using the SIREMOBIL Iso-C3D Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., March 1, 2004; 33(2): 130 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| BJR | DMFR | IMAGING | ALL BIR JOURNALS |
