Your browser doesn't support javascript.
A Biblioteca Cochrane foi excluída da BVS por decisão da Wiley de não renovação da licença de uso com a BIREME. Saiba mais.

BVS Odontologia

Informação e Conhecimento para a Saúde

Home > Pesquisa > ()
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportação:


Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

Dose assessment in dental cone-beam computed tomography: Comparison of optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry with Monte Carlo method.

Lee, Chena; Yoon, Jeongmin; Han, Sang-Sun; Na, Ji Yeon; Lee, Jeong-Hee; Kim, Young Hyun; Hwang, Jae Joon.
PLoS One; 15(3): e0219103, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32231373
The variety of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) machines and their applications has rapidly increased in recent years, making the dose evaluation of individual devices an important issue. Patient doses from CBCT were assessed with two different


optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, in four different examination modes. Based on an analysis of the measurement process and the obtained values, a recommendation is made regarding which method is more practical and efficient for acquiring the effective dose of CBCT. Twenty-two OSLDs were calibrated and equipped in human phantoms of head and neck organs. They were exposed to radiation from two CBCT units-CS9300 (Carestream Dental LLC, Atlanta, Georgia) and RAYSCAN α+ (Ray Co. Ltd, Hwaseong-si, Korea)-using two different examination modes. The dose recorded using the OSLDs was used to calculate the organ dose and the effective dose for each unit in each examination mode. These values were also calculated using MC software, PCXMC (STUK, Helsinki, Finland). The organ doses and effective doses obtained using both methods were compared for each examination mode of the individual units. The OSLD-measured effective dose value was higher than that obtained using the MC method for each examination mode, except the dual jaw mode of CS9300. The percent difference of the effective dose between the two methods ranged from 4.0% to 14.3%. The dose difference between the methods decreased as the field of view became smaller. The organ dose values varied according to the method, although the overall trend was similar for both methods. The organs showing high doses were mostly consistent for both methods. In this study, the effective dose obtained by OSLD measurements and MC simulations were compared, and both methods were described in detail. As a relatively efficient and easy-to-perform method, we cautiously suggest using MC simulations for dose evaluations in the future.