Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: A radiation dose evaluation

被引:313
作者
Garcia Silva, Maria Alves [1 ]
Wolf, Ulrich [2 ]
Heinicke, Frank [2 ]
Bumann, Axel [3 ]
Visser, Heiko
Hirsch, Edgar [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Goias, Sch Dent, Dept Stomatol Sci, Goias, Brazil
[2] Univ Leipzig, Ctr Radiotherapy & Radio Oncol, Leipzig, Germany
[3] Univ So Calif, Dept Craniofacial Sci & Therapy, Los Angeles, CA USA
[4] Univ Leipzig, Sch Dent, Dept DentoMaxilloFacial Radiol, Leipzig, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.019
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 [口腔医学];
摘要
Introduction: Because of the advantages and possibilities of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), orthodontists use this method routinely for patient assessment. The aim of this study was to compare the radiation doses for conventional panoramic and cephalometric imaging with the doses for 2 different CBCT units and a multi-slice CT unit in orthodontic practice. Methods: The absorbed organ doses were measured by using an anthropomorphic phantom loaded with thermoluminescent dosimeters at 16 sites related to sensitive organs. The 4 devices (Sirona DS Plus [Sirona Dental Systems, Bernsheim, Germany], i-CAT [Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, Pa], NewTom DVT 9000 [QR, Verona, Italy], and Somatom Sensation [Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen, Germany]) were used with standard protocols and, when possible, in the auto-exposure mode. Equivalent and effective doses were calculated. The calculation of the effective doses was based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection's 2005 recommendations. Results: The lowest organ dose (13.1 mu Sv) was received by the thyroid gland during conventional panoramic and lateral cephalometric imaging. The highest mean organ dose (15,837.2 mu Sv) was received by the neck skin from the multi-slice CT. The effective dose was also lower for the panoramic and lateral cephalometric device (10.4 mu Sv), and highest for the multi- slice CT (429.7 mu Sv). Conclusions: From a radiation-protection point of view, conventional images still deliver the lowest doses to patients. When 3-dimensional imaging is required in orthodontic practice, a CBCT should be preferred over a CT image. Further studies are necessary to justify the routine use of CBCT in orthodontic treatment planning.
引用
收藏
页码:640.e1 / 640.e5
页数:5
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]
Aboudara C A, 2003, Orthod Craniofac Res, V6 Suppl 1, P173, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.253.x
[2]
Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls [J].
Adams, GL ;
Gansky, SA ;
Miller, AJ ;
Harrell, WE ;
Hatcher, DC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2004, 126 (04) :397-409
[3]
Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use [J].
Arai, Y ;
Tammisalo, E ;
Iwai, K ;
Hashimoto, K ;
Shinoda, K .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 1999, 28 (04) :245-248
[4]
Radiation dose in dental radiology [J].
Cohnen, M ;
Kemper, J ;
Möbes, O ;
Pawelzik, J ;
Mödder, U .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (03) :634-637
[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 equivalent and effective dose: Comparison for common projections in oral and maxillofacial radiology [J].
Gibbs, SJ .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 2000, 90 (04) :538-545
[8]
Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography [J].
Gijbels, F ;
Sanderink, G ;
Wyatt, J ;
Van Dam, J ;
Nowak, B ;
Jacobs, R .
BRITISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 2004, 197 (03) :149-152
[9]
Radiation doses of collimated vs non-collimated cephalometric exposures [J].
Gijbels, F ;
Sanderink, G ;
Wyatt, J ;
Van Dam, J ;
Nowak, B ;
Jacobs, R .
DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 2003, 32 (02) :128-133
[10]
From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans [J].
Halazonetis, DJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2005, 127 (05) :627-637