Digital radiographic equipment in the Belgian dental office.

A survey was performed among Belgian dentists to evaluate the use and management of digital radiographic equipment. The majority of respondents work as general dental practitioners. One out of eight sets of equipment for extraoral exposures is digital. For intraoral radiography, 30% of the equipment is digital. While exposure time is reduced by about 50% for digital intraoral radiography compared with conventional radiography, no differences can be found between different conventional film speed classes. Appropriate collimation of the radiation beam is only sparingly used. Beam aiming devices to hold the film and position the radiation beam are not used by the majority of dentists. While 25% of the respondents stand behind a protective wall during exposure, 8% of dentists remain next to the patient during exposure while assisting in holding the film inside the mouth. A minority of the latter practitioners wear lead aprons.

Radiation dose vs. image quality for low-dose CT protocols of the head for maxillofacial surgery and oral implant planning.

The goal of this study was to determine the acquisition parameters for a low-dose multi-slice CT protocol and to compare the effective dose and the image quality of this low-dose protocol with the image quality of a clinical multi-slice CT protocol, routinely used for visualisation of the head. The low-dose protocol was derived from a clinical multi-slice CT protocol by lowering mA s and kV and increasing the pitch. The low-dose protocol yielded a dose reduction from 1.5 to 0.18 mSv for a multi-slice CT scan of the whole head, whereas noise in the low-dose CT images was increased. For bone segmentation, noise could be reduced by use of a non-linear edge preserving smoothing filter. Tests on ESP and skull phantom indicated that the accuracy of the measurements on low-dose CT is acceptable for image-based planning of maxillofacial and oral implant surgery, reducing the dose by a factor of 8.

Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: Patient exposure.

OBJECTIVES: To measure patient radiation dose during panoramic exposure with various panoramic units for digital panoramic imaging. METHODS: An anthropomorphic phantom was filled with thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLD 100) and exposed with five different digital panoramic units during ten consecutive exposures. Four machines were equipped with a direct digital CCD (charge coupled device) system, whereas one of the units used storage phosphor plates (indirect digital technique). The exposure settings recommended by the different manufacturers for the particular image and patient size were used: tube potential settings ranged between 64 kV and 74 kV, exposure times between 8.2 s and 19.0 s, at fuse current values between 4 mA and 7 mA. The effective radiation dose was calculated with inclusion of the salivary glands. RESULTS: Effective radiation doses ranged between 4.7 microSv and 14.9 microSv for one exposure. Salivary glands absorbed the most radiation for all panoramic units. When indirect and direct digital panoramic systems were compared, the effective dose of the indirect digital unit (8.1 microSv) could be found within the range of the effective doses for the direct digital units (4.7-14.9 microSv). CONCLUSIONS: A rather wide range of patient radiation doses can be found for digital panoramic units. There is a tendency for lower effective doses for digital compared with analogue panoramic units, reported in previous studies.

Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part II: Occupational exposure.

OBJECTIVES: To measure occupational radiation dose during panoramic exposure from five digital panoramic X-ray units. METHODS: Exposures were made with five different digital panoramic units, of which four were equipped with a direct digital CCD (charge coupled device, "direct digital" technique), and one used storage phosphor plates ("indirect digital" technique). An anthropomorphic phantom served as the patient. An ionization chamber recorded the scattered radiation at 1 m from the phantom at five different locations around the panoramic units, both at the level of the thyroid gland and the level of the gonads, and effective organ doses were calculated. Exposure parameters were set as recommended by the manufacturers for the particular image and patient size: tube potential settings ranged between 64 kV and 74 kV, exposure times between 8.2 s and 19.0 s, tube current values between 4 mA and 7 mA. RESULTS: The maximum organ equivalent dose at 1 m from the panoramic unit was 0.60 microGy, the maximum organ effective dose was 0.10 microSv. Organ equivalent doses varied between 0.18 microGy and 0.30 microGy and organ effective doses between 0.01 microSv and 0.05 microSv for the different positions around the units (average for the different panoramic units). The variations in organ doses for the various machines were 0.04-0.53 microGy organ equivalent dose and 0.01-0.08 microSv organ effective dose. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that 500 panoramic radiographs per year are taken by a dental practitioner at 1 m distance from the panoramic unit, he or she will receive an annual additional organ effective dose between 5 microSv and 15 microSv for the thyroid gland and between 5 microSv and 40 microSv for the gonads, depending on the type of digital panoramic unit.