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

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). Organ absorbed doses were measured using a fema...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Dento-maxillo-facial radiology 2001-09, Vol.30 (5), p.255
Hauptverfasser: Lecomber, A R, Yoneyama, Y, Lovelock, D J, Hosoi, T, Adams, A M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 5
container_start_page 255
container_title Dento-maxillo-facial radiology
container_volume 30
creator Lecomber, A R
Yoneyama, Y
Lovelock, D J
Hosoi, T
Adams, A M
description 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). 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)). 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). 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_11571544</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>11571544</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-63a46c0ece4e5050c4f07901b636e48b20835991b56da4598da258e8a91df8a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kE1LAzEQhnNQbK2evUn-wNbJ5qPZoxS1QsGLgreS3SR1y-aDZFfo3R9uivXyDMz7MDAvQncElgSofMiHpXY2LZkAEPXqAs2h5lBJWn_O0HXOBwBglIsrNCOErwhnbI5-1sFFlfocPA4WRzX2xo9Yh2ywTcHh3ql97_c4pjCGLgwZ25CwLpIaShgHVfQT_cma8old8N9F6IMvTlK6D_uk4tcRK69L6OI0Go3H4M77G3Rp1ZDN7Xku0Mfz0_t6U23fXl7Xj9uqo6QZK0EVEx2YzjDDgUPHLKwaIK2gwjDZ1iApbxrScqEV443UqubSSNUQbQvpAt3_3Y1T64zexVS-S8fdfx30FxMZZJk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Lecomber, A R ; Yoneyama, Y ; Lovelock, D J ; Hosoi, T ; Adams, A M</creator><creatorcontrib>Lecomber, A R ; Yoneyama, Y ; Lovelock, D J ; Hosoi, T ; Adams, A M</creatorcontrib><description>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). 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)). 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). 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0250-832X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11571544</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Absorption ; Bone Marrow - radiation effects ; Cephalometry ; Dental Implants ; Female ; Fluorides - radiation effects ; Humans ; Lithium Compounds - radiation effects ; Mandible - diagnostic imaging ; Mandible - radiation effects ; Patient Care Planning ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiography, Dental ; Radiography, Panoramic ; Salivary Glands - radiation effects ; Skin - radiation effects ; Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation ; Thyroid Gland - radiation effects ; Tomography, X-Ray ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><ispartof>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology, 2001-09, Vol.30 (5), p.255</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-63a46c0ece4e5050c4f07901b636e48b20835991b56da4598da258e8a91df8a93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11571544$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lecomber, A R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoneyama, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lovelock, D J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hosoi, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, A M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography</title><title>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology</title><addtitle>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</addtitle><description>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). 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)). 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). 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.</description><subject>Absorption</subject><subject>Bone Marrow - radiation effects</subject><subject>Cephalometry</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorides - radiation effects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lithium Compounds - radiation effects</subject><subject>Mandible - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mandible - radiation effects</subject><subject>Patient Care Planning</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiography, Dental</subject><subject>Radiography, Panoramic</subject><subject>Salivary Glands - radiation effects</subject><subject>Skin - radiation effects</subject><subject>Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation</subject><subject>Thyroid Gland - radiation effects</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><issn>0250-832X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kE1LAzEQhnNQbK2evUn-wNbJ5qPZoxS1QsGLgreS3SR1y-aDZFfo3R9uivXyDMz7MDAvQncElgSofMiHpXY2LZkAEPXqAs2h5lBJWn_O0HXOBwBglIsrNCOErwhnbI5-1sFFlfocPA4WRzX2xo9Yh2ywTcHh3ql97_c4pjCGLgwZ25CwLpIaShgHVfQT_cma8old8N9F6IMvTlK6D_uk4tcRK69L6OI0Go3H4M77G3Rp1ZDN7Xku0Mfz0_t6U23fXl7Xj9uqo6QZK0EVEx2YzjDDgUPHLKwaIK2gwjDZ1iApbxrScqEV443UqubSSNUQbQvpAt3_3Y1T64zexVS-S8fdfx30FxMZZJk</recordid><startdate>20010901</startdate><enddate>20010901</enddate><creator>Lecomber, A R</creator><creator>Yoneyama, Y</creator><creator>Lovelock, D J</creator><creator>Hosoi, T</creator><creator>Adams, A M</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20010901</creationdate><title>Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography</title><author>Lecomber, A R ; Yoneyama, Y ; Lovelock, D J ; Hosoi, T ; Adams, A M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-63a46c0ece4e5050c4f07901b636e48b20835991b56da4598da258e8a91df8a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Absorption</topic><topic>Bone Marrow - radiation effects</topic><topic>Cephalometry</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorides - radiation effects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lithium Compounds - radiation effects</topic><topic>Mandible - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mandible - radiation effects</topic><topic>Patient Care Planning</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiography, Dental</topic><topic>Radiography, Panoramic</topic><topic>Salivary Glands - radiation effects</topic><topic>Skin - radiation effects</topic><topic>Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation</topic><topic>Thyroid Gland - radiation effects</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lecomber, A R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoneyama, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lovelock, D J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hosoi, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, A M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><jtitle>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lecomber, A R</au><au>Yoneyama, Y</au><au>Lovelock, D J</au><au>Hosoi, T</au><au>Adams, A M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography</atitle><jtitle>Dento-maxillo-facial radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Dentomaxillofac Radiol</addtitle><date>2001-09-01</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>255</spage><pages>255-</pages><issn>0250-832X</issn><abstract>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). 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)). 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). 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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>11571544</pmid><doi>10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0250-832X
ispartof Dento-maxillo-facial radiology, 2001-09, Vol.30 (5), p.255
issn 0250-832X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_11571544
source MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Absorption
Bone Marrow - radiation effects
Cephalometry
Dental Implants
Female
Fluorides - radiation effects
Humans
Lithium Compounds - radiation effects
Mandible - diagnostic imaging
Mandible - radiation effects
Patient Care Planning
Phantoms, Imaging
Radiation Dosage
Radiography, Dental
Radiography, Panoramic
Salivary Glands - radiation effects
Skin - radiation effects
Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation
Thyroid Gland - radiation effects
Tomography, X-Ray
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
title Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T21%3A21%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20patient%20dose%20from%20imaging%20protocols%20for%20dental%20implant%20planning%20using%20conventional%20radiography%20and%20computed%20tomography&rft.jtitle=Dento-maxillo-facial%20radiology&rft.au=Lecomber,%20A%20R&rft.date=2001-09-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=255&rft.pages=255-&rft.issn=0250-832X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed%3E11571544%3C/pubmed%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/11571544&rfr_iscdi=true