Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography

被引:14
作者
Rottke, D. [1 ,2 ]
Grossekettler, L. [1 ]
Sawada, K. [3 ]
Poxleitner, P. [1 ]
Schulze, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Dent Diagnost Ctr, D-79098 Freiburg, Germany
[2] Univ Freiburg, Dept Prosthodont, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany
[3] Nihon Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Radiol, Tokyo, Japan
关键词
radiation protection; thermoluminescent dosimetry; radiography; panoramic; dentistry; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; CONVENTIONAL RADIOGRAPHY; EXPOSURE; DOSIMETRY; REDUCTION; RADIOLOGY; CBCT;
D O I
10.1259/dmfr.20130302
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: This study investigated the absorbed doses in a full anthropomorphic body phantom from two different panoramic radiography devices, performing protocols with and without applying a lead apron. Methods: A RANDO (R) full body phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stamford, CT) was equipped with 110 thermoluminescent dosemeters at 55 different sites and set up in two different panoramic radiography devices [SCANORA (R) three-dimensional (3D) (SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland) and ProMax (R) 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland)] and exposed. Two different protocols were performed in the two devices. The first protocol was performed without any lead shielding, whereas the phantom was equipped with a standard adult lead apron for the second protocol. Results: A two-tailed paired samples t-test for the SCANORA 3D revealed that there is no difference between the protocol using lead apron shielding (m = 87.99, s = 102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m = 87.34, s = 107.49), t(54) = 0.313, p > 0.05. The same test for the ProMax 3D showed that there is also no difference between the protocol using shielding (m = 106.48,s = 117.38) and the protocol without shielding (m = 107.75, s = 114,36), t(54) = 0.938, p > 0.05. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no statistically significant differences between a panoramic radiography with or without the use of lead apron shielding.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
ALDERSON SW, 1962, AMER J ROENTGENOL RA, V87, P185
[2]   Dental radiography: tooth enamel EPR dose assessment from Rando phantom measurements [J].
Aragno, D ;
Fattibene, P ;
Onori, S .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2000, 45 (09) :2671-2683
[3]  
BOURGEOIS M, 1992, Health Physics, V62, P546, DOI 10.1097/00004032-199206000-00007
[4]  
Buch B, 2003, SADJ, V58, P6
[5]   Cross-sectional imaging in dentomaxillofacial diagnostics:: Dose comparison of dental MSCT and NewTom® 9000 DVT [J].
Coppenrath, E. ;
Draenert, F. ;
Lechel, U. ;
Veit, R. ;
Meindl, T. ;
Reiser, M. ;
Mueller-Lisse, U. .
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2008, 180 (05) :396-401
[6]  
Dirican B, 2006, INT J PROSTHODONT, V19, P462
[7]   Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: The Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit [J].
Dula, K ;
Mini, R ;
van der Stelt, PF ;
Sanderink, GCH ;
Schneeberger, P ;
Buser, D .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 2001, 91 (06) :735-742
[8]  
European Commission, 2012, Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology (Evidencebased guidelines)
[9]   Effective dosages for recording Veraviewepocs dental panoramic images: analog film, digital, and panoramic scout for CBCT [J].
Garcia Silva, Maria Alves ;
Wolf, Ulrich ;
Heinicke, Frank ;
Gruendler, Katharina ;
Visser, Heiko ;
Hirsch, Edgar .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY, 2008, 106 (04) :571-577
[10]   Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography [J].
Gavala, Sophia ;
Donta, Catherine ;
Tsiklakis, Kostas ;
Boziari, Argyro ;
Kamenopoulou, Vasiliki ;
Stamatakis, Harry C. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2009, 71 (01) :42-48