Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
Health Phys ; 102(2): 137-42, 2012 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22217586

ABSTRACT

A handheld portable dental intraoral x-ray system is available in the United States and elsewhere. The system is designed to minimize the user's radiation dose. It includes specially designed shielding of the x-ray tube housing and an integral radiation shield to minimize backscatter. Personnel radiation dose records were obtained from 18 dental facilities using both the handheld system and a wall mounted dental x-ray system, providing 661 individual dose measurements. Dental staff doses were also compared for the handheld and conventional systems using both film and digital imaging for the same facilities and staff members. The results indicate that the doses for the handheld systems are significantly less than for wall-mounted systems. The average monthly dose for the handheld systems was 0.28 µSv vs. 7.86 µSv (deep dose equivalent) for the wall-mounted systems, a difference that is statistically significant at the p = 0.01 level. Consequently, there should be no concern about the use of this handheld dental intraoral x-ray system. Additional shielding efforts, (e.g., wearing a lead apron) will not provide significant benefit nor reduce staff radiation dose.


Subject(s)
Dental Staff , Occupational Exposure , Radiography, Dental/instrumentation , Humans , Radiation Dosage
3.
Radiology ; 253(2): 520-31, 2009 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19789227

ABSTRACT

The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation each conducted respective assessments of all radiation sources in the United States and worldwide. The goal of this article is to summarize and combine the results of these two publicly available surveys and to compare the results with historical information. In the United States in 2006, about 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations and 18 million nuclear medicine examinations were performed. The United States accounts for about 12% of radiologic procedures and about one-half of nuclear medicine procedures performed worldwide. In the United States, the frequency of diagnostic radiologic examinations has increased almost 10-fold (1950-2006). The U.S. per-capita annual effective dose from medical procedures has increased about sixfold (0.5 mSv [1980] to 3.0 mSv [2006]). Worldwide estimates for 2000-2007 indicate that 3.6 billion medical procedures with ionizing radiation (3.1 billion diagnostic radiologic, 0.5 billion dental, and 37 million nuclear medicine examinations) are performed annually. Worldwide, the average annual per-capita effective dose from medicine (about 0.6 mSv of the total 3.0 mSv received from all sources) has approximately doubled in the past 10-15 years.


Subject(s)
Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Nuclear Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Radiation Dosage , Radiology/statistics & numerical data , Diagnostic Imaging/trends , Humans , Internationality , United States
4.
Health Phys ; 95(5): 502-7, 2008 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18849682

ABSTRACT

Medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population has not been systematically evaluated for almost 25 y. In 1982, the per capita dose was estimated to be 0.54 mSv and the collective dose 124,000 person-Sv. The preliminary estimates of the NCRP Scientific Committee 6-2 medical subgroup are that, in 2006, the per capita dose from medical exposure (not including dental or radiotherapy) had increased almost 600% to about 3.0 mSv and the collective dose had increased over 700% to about 900,000 person-Sv. The largest contributions and increases have come primarily from CT scanning and nuclear medicine. The 62 million CT procedures accounted for 15% of the total number procedures (excluding dental) and over half of the collective dose. Nuclear medicine accounted for about 4% of all procedures but 26% of the total collective dose. Medical radiation exposure is now approximately equal to natural background radiation.


Subject(s)
Environmental Exposure , Radiation Injuries/prevention & control , Radiation Oncology/standards , Radiation, Ionizing , Age Distribution , Humans , Nuclear Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Radiation Injuries/etiology , Radiography , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/adverse effects , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data
5.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry ; 115(1-4): 16-22, 2005.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16381677

ABSTRACT

The concept of applying constraints on individual sources to a small fraction of the public dose limit has been deemed inappropriate when shielding the medical X-ray sources. This represents a broad-based consensus of medical physics and radiological societies in the United States, and the report series on the shielding design for medical X-ray sources (including dental, X-ray imaging and therapeutic X ray) from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) utilises 1 mSv y(-1) as a source control limit. In the present study, the rationale for such a conclusion is discussed, and a somewhat critical look at the current model of radiation protection of the public is made.


Subject(s)
Environmental Exposure , Guidelines as Topic , Public Opinion , Radiation Injuries/prevention & control , Radiation Monitoring/standards , Radiation Protection/standards , Risk Assessment/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Philosophy , Risk Factors , Science
6.
Radiology ; 235(2): 354-8, 2005 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15758190

ABSTRACT

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance.


Subject(s)
Fluoroscopy/standards , Radiography, Dental/standards , Radiography/standards , Radiometry/standards , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Equipment Safety , Fluoroscopy/instrumentation , Humans , Phantoms, Imaging , Radiation Dosage , Radiation Monitoring/standards , Radiography/instrumentation , Radiography, Dental/instrumentation , Reference Values , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/instrumentation , United States
7.
Med Phys ; 32(12): 3599-601, 2005 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16475758

ABSTRACT

The recently published Report No. 147 of The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements entitled "Structural shielding design for medical x-ray imaging facilities" provides an update of shielding recommendations for x rays used for medical imaging. The goal of this report is to ensure that the shielding in these facilities limits radiation exposures to employees and members of the public to acceptable levels. Board certified medical and health physicists, as defined in this report, are the "qualified experts" who are competent to design radiation shielding for these facilities. As such, physicists must be aware of the new technical information and the changes from previous reports that Report No. 147 supersedes. In this article we summarize the new data, models and recommendations for the design of radiation barriers in medical imaging facilities that are presented in Report No. 147.


Subject(s)
Radiation Protection/instrumentation , Biophysical Phenomena , Biophysics , Facility Design and Construction , Government Agencies , Humans , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/standards , Radiation Protection/methods , Radiation Protection/standards , United States
8.
Radiology ; 233(2): 622; author reply 622, 2004 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15516628
10.
11.
Article in English | WHO IRIS | ID: who-51931

Subject(s)
Radiation Dosage
13.
World Health Forum (WHO) ; 13(2/3): 213-217, 1992.
Article in English | PAHO | ID: pah-11977
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...