This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ekestubbe, A Articles by Gröndahl, H-G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ekestubbe, A Articles by Gröndahl, H-G

Effective and organ doses from scanography and zonography: a comparison with periapical radiography

¹ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden; ² Department of Radiation Physics, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden; ³ Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Göteborg Public Dental Service, Göteborg, Sweden

*Correspondence to: Annika Ekestubbe, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, PO Box 450, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden; Email: ekestubbe{at}odontologi.gu.se

Received 21 November 2003; accepted 30 March 2004

Objectives: To compare absorbed and effective doses from scanographic and zonographic examinations performed in the Scanora^® unit with intraoral periapical radiography.

Methods: Absorbed dose measurements were made on an anthropomorphic phantom head with LiF thermoluminescent dosemeters in the regions of the pituitary gland, eye lenses, parotid glands, submandibular glands, thyroid gland and skin. Energy imparted was calculated from the measurements of air collision kerma and effective doses by using the quotient 24 mSv J^–1 between energy imparted and effective dose. The upper and lower third molar region was examined with intraoral radiographs and with ramus scanograms, dental scanograms and dental zonograms. Radiation dose measurements were also performed for Scanora^® panoramic radiography (jaw and dental).

Results: The effective doses for the ramus and dental scanograms were 0.01 mSv, similar or lower than for intraoral radiography. Zonography yielded the highest effective dose (0.03 mSv). Except for the skin doses, the salivary glands received the highest doses. Salivary gland doses were slightly higher from narrow beam than from intraoral radiography.

Conclusions: Detail narrow beam radiography with the Scanora^® is an alternative to periapical radiography and is preferred, from a radiation dose point of view, over zonography.

Keywords: radiography, dental; radiation dosage

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I Peker, M Toraman Alkurt, and B Altunkaynak Film tomography compared with film and digital bitewing radiography for proximal caries detection Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 36(8): 495 - 499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Kaeppler, K Dietz, K Herz, and S Reinert Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 36(8): 506 - 513. [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]