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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alcaraz, M Articles by Canteras, M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alcaraz, M Articles by Canteras, M

Is it true that the radiation dose to which patients are exposed has decreased with modern radiographic films?

¹Department of Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine/Dentistry, University of Murcia, Campus Espinardo, Spain; ²Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine/Dentistry, University of Murcia, Campus Espinardo, Spain; ³Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine/Dentistry, University of Murcia, Campus Espinardo, Spain

*Correspondence to: Department of Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine/Dentistry, University of Murcia, 30100 – Campus de Espinardo (Murcia), Spain. E-mail: mab{at}um.es

Received 12 October 2007; revised 24 February 2008; accepted 6 March 2008

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether the radiation dose administered to patients has decreased with new radiographic films and digital imaging systems.

Methods: A total of 10 171 official reports on radiological practice in dental surgeries (covering the years 1996–2003) from 16 Spanish autonomous regions were studied, analysing the type of film used, the exposure times and the radiation doses administered in each dental clinic for four different teeth: upper molar, lower molar, upper incisor and lower incisor.

Results: The Agfa Dentus M2 radiographic film needed the longest exposure times for all of the teeth (0.6 s, 0.5 s, 0.4 s and 0.4 s, respectively) followed in decreasing order by Ultraspeed, Insight, Ektaspeed and the digital systems, the decrease with respect to the first reaching as much as 60%. Regarding the dose administered, Agfa Dentus M2 used the highest dose (3.1 mGy) followed by Ultraspeed (2.7 mGy), Insight (2.2 mGy), Ektaspeed (2.2 mGy) and, finally, the digital systems (1.1 mGy). Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the doses administered for the digital systems with respect to the radiographic films (P < 0.001) and with respect to manual or automatic processing (P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in dose between the different types of films themselves, or between the radiographic developing processes themselves (manual and automatic).

Conclusion: Not even the use of the most sensitive of modern films has brought about a reduction of the dose administered to patients in Spain. Only digital systems, it seems, will bring about reduction in this dose.

Keywords: radiography; intraoral; doses; radiation; film