Research on Biomedical Engineering
http://www.rbejournal.periodikos.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/2446-4740.03717
Research on Biomedical Engineering
Original Article

Absorbed doses in salivary and thyroid glands from panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography

Katia Regina Heiden; Anna Silvia Penteado Setti da Rocha; Danielle Filipov; Cristina Berrocal Salazar; Ângela Fernandes; Fernando Henrique Westphalen; Jõao Antonio Palma Setti

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction:: Panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) are very important in the diagnosis of oral diseases, however patients are exposed to the risk of ionizing radiation. This paper describes our study aimed at comparing absorbed doses in the salivary glands and thyroid due to panoramic radiography and CBCT and estimating radiation induced cancer risk associated with those methods.

Methods: Absorbed doses of two CBCT equipment (i-CAT® Next Generation and SCANORA® 3D) and a digital panoramic device (ORTHOPANTOMOGRAPH® OP200D) were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters loaded in an anthropomorphic phantom on sublingual, submandibular, parotid and thyroid glands.

Results: Absorbed doses in the i-CAT® device ranged between 0.02 (+/-0.01) and 2.23 mGy (+/-0.03), in the SCANORA™ device ranged from 0.01 (+/-0.01) to 2.96 mGy (+/-0.29) and in the ORTHOPANTOMOGRAPH® OP200D ranged between 0.04 mGy and 0.78 mGy. The radiation induced cancer risk was highlighted in the salivary glands, which received higher doses. The protocols that offer the highest risk of cancer are the high resolution protocols of CBCT equipment.

Conclusion: CBCT exposes patients to higher levels of radiation than panoramic radiography, so the risks and benefits of each method should be considered. The doses in CBCT were dependent on equipment and exposure parameters, therefore adequate selection minimizes the radiation dose.

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography, Panoramic radiograph, Radiation dose, Thermoluminescent dosimetry

References

Akyalcin S, English JD, Abramovitch KM, Rong XJ. Measurement of skin dose from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Head Face Med. 2013; 9(28):28. PMid:24192155.

Al-Okshi AM, Nilsson M, Petersson A, Wiese M, Lindh C. Using GafChromic film to estimate the effective dose from dental cone beam CT and panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42(7):1-8. PMid:23610090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120343.

European Commission. Radiation protection nº 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence based guidelines [internet] Brussels; 2012 [cited 2018 Jan 1]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/172.pdf

Gijbels F, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Debaveye D, Verlinden S, Sanderink G. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: patient exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34(3):145-9. PMid:15897284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28107460.

Grünheid T, Kolbeck Schieck JR, Pliska BT, Ahmad M, Larson BE. Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):436-43. PMid:22464525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.024.

Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015; 45(4):263-5. PMid:26730375. http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.263.

Lecomber AR, Downes SL, Mokhtari M, Faulkner K. Optimisation of patient doses in programmable dental panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000; 29(2):107-12. PMid:10808225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600513.

Lecomber AR, Yoneyama Y, Lovelock DJ, Hosoi T, Adams AM. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001; 30(5):255-9. PMid:11571544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600627.

Li G. Patient radiation dose and protection from cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2013; 43(2):63-9. PMid:23807928. http://dx.doi.org/10.5624/isd.2013.43.2.63.

Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 71(3):461-8. PMid:18639404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002.

Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64- slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(1):106-14. PMid:18504152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018.

National Research Council – NRC. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2006.

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81(2):267-71. PMid:21196094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028.

Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015; 165(1-4):156-61. PMid:25805884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv057.

Schilling R, Geibel MA. Assessment of the effective doses from two dental cone beam CT devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 42(5):42. PMid:23420855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120273.

Sezgin OS, Kayipmaz S, Yasar D, Yilmaz AB, Ozturk MH. Comparative dosimetry of dental cone beam computed tomography, panoramic radiography, and multislice computed tomography. Oral Radiol. 2012; 28(1):32-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11282-011-0078-5.

Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging. 2015; 6(1):1-16. PMid:25575868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0379-4.
 

5ad4dfdc0e8825fe72489546 rbejournal Articles
Links & Downloads

Res. Biomed. Eng.

Share this page
Page Sections