Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: The Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit

被引:17
作者
Dula, K
Mini, R
van der Stelt, PF
Sanderink, GCH
Schneeberger, P
Buser, D
机构
[1] Univ Bern, Sch Dent Med, Dept Oral Surg, Sect Dent Radiol, Bern, Switzerland
[2] Univ Bern, Sch Med, Dept Radiooncol, Div Med Radiat Phys, Bern, Switzerland
[3] Acad Ctr Dent Amsterdam, Dept Oral Radiol, NL-1066 EA Amsterdam, Netherlands
来源
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS | 2001年 / 91卷 / 06期
关键词
D O I
10.1067/moe.2001.113591
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine the dose profile of the Cranex Tome radiography unit and compare it with that of the Scanora machine. Study design. The radiation dose delivered by the Cranex Tome radiography unit during the cross-sectional mode was determined. Single tooth gaps in regions 3 (16) and 30 (46) were simulated. Dosimetry was carried out with 2 phantoms, a head and neck phantom and a full-body phantom loaded with 142 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and 280 TLD, respectively; all locations corresponded to radiosensitive organs or tissues. The recorded local mean organ doses were compared with those measured in another study evaluating the Scanora machine. Results. Generally, dose values from the Cranex Tome radiography unit reached only 50% to 60% of the values measured for the Scanora machine. The effective dose was calculated as 0.061 mSv and 0.04 mSv for tooth regions 3 (16) and 30 (46), respectively. Corresponding values for the Scanora machine were 0.117 mSv and 0.084 mSv. Conclusion. Cross-sectional imaging in the molar region of the upper and the lower jaw can be performed with the Cranex Tome unit, which delivers only approximately half of the dose that the Scanora machine delivers.
引用
收藏
页码:735 / 742
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1990, ICRP PUBL
[2]   Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: A clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients [J].
Buser, D ;
Dula, K ;
Hirt, HP ;
Schenk, RK .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1996, 54 (04) :420-432
[3]  
Buser D A, 1997, Ann Periodontol, V2, P329, DOI 10.1902/annals.1997.2.1.329
[4]   Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral computed tomography of the maxilla and mandible [J].
Dula, K ;
Mini, R ;
vanderStelt, PF ;
Lambrecht, JT ;
Schneeberger, P ;
Buser, D .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, 1996, 104 (5-6) :503-510
[5]   Hypothetical mortality risk associated with spiral tomography of the maxilla and mandible prior to endosseous implant treatment [J].
Dula, K ;
Mini, R ;
Lambrecht, JT ;
vanderStelt, PF ;
Schneeberger, P ;
Clemens, G ;
Sanderink, H ;
Buser, D .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, 1997, 105 (02) :123-129
[6]   EFFECTIVE DOSE AND RISK ASSESSMENT FROM FILM TOMOGRAPHY USED FOR DENTAL IMPLANT DIAGNOSTICS [J].
FREDERIKSEN, NL ;
BENSON, BW ;
SOKOLOWSKI, TW .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 1994, 23 (03) :123-127
[7]   EFFECTIVE DOSE AND RISK ASSESSMENT FROM COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY OF THE MAXILLOFACIAL COMPLEX [J].
FREDERIKSEN, NL ;
BENSON, BW ;
SOKOLOWSKI, TW .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 1995, 24 (01) :55-58
[8]  
Gher M E, 1995, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, V15, P268
[9]  
Mini RL, 1992, DOSISBESTIMMUNGEN ME
[10]  
Schwarz M S, 1987, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V2, P143