» Articles » PMID: 21196094

Effective Dose Range for Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scanners

Overview
Journal Eur J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2011 Jan 4
PMID 21196094
Citations 191
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To estimate the absorbed organ dose and effective dose for a wide range of cone beam computed tomography scanners, using different exposure protocols and geometries.

Materials And Methods: Two Alderson Radiation Therapy anthropomorphic phantoms were loaded with LiF detectors (TLD-100 and TLD-100 H) which were evenly distributed throughout the head and neck, covering all radiosensitive organs. Measurements were performed on 14 CBCT devices: 3D Accuitomo 170, Galileos Comfort, i-CAT Next Generation, Iluma Elite, Kodak 9000 3D, Kodak 9500, NewTom VG, NewTom VGi, Pax-Uni3D, Picasso Trio, ProMax 3D, Scanora 3D, SkyView, Veraviewepocs 3D. Effective dose was calculated using the ICRP 103 (2007) tissue weighting factors.

Results: Effective dose ranged between 19 and 368 μSv. The largest contributions to the effective dose were from the remainder tissues (37%), salivary glands (24%), and thyroid gland (21%). For all organs, there was a wide range of measured values apparent, due to differences in exposure factors, diameter and height of the primary beam, and positioning of the beam relative to the radiosensitive organs.

Conclusions: The effective dose for different CBCT devices showed a 20-fold range. The results show that a distinction is needed between small-, medium-, and large-field CBCT scanners and protocols, as they are applied to different indication groups, the dose received being strongly related to field size. Furthermore, the dose should always be considered relative to technical and diagnostic image quality, seeing that image quality requirements also differ for patient groups. The results from the current study indicate that the optimisation of dose should be performed by an appropriate selection of exposure parameters and field size, depending on the diagnostic requirements.

Citing Articles

Can Viewing Modality Affect Frontal Mandibular Bone Height Measurement? A Comparison Between 3D Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Viewer and Printed Portable Document Format Cone Beam Computer Tomography Reports.

Solomonov M, Shapinko Y, Lalum E, Ben Itzhak J, Argaman S, Schottig M Dent J (Basel). 2025; 13(1).

PMID: 39851598 PMC: 11763400. DOI: 10.3390/dj13010022.


Photon-counting-detector CT outperforms state-of-the-art cone-beam and energy-integrated-detector CT in delineation of dental root canals.

Rau S, Pichotka M, Rau A, Reisert M, Altenburger M, Schmelzeisen R Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):2978.

PMID: 39849001 PMC: 11758001. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87081-w.


Assessing the Accuracy of Linear Alveolar Bone Measurements for Implant Planning Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography by Comparing Three Competent Three-Dimensional Imaging Software: An In Vitro Study.

Neralla A, Mishra S, Nc S, Srinivasan B, Bajoria A, Singh D Cureus. 2024; 16(11):e73172.

PMID: 39650903 PMC: 11624290. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.73172.


Image quality-based dose optimization in pediatric cone-beam computed tomography: A pilot methodological study.

Kim H, Choi Y, Jeon K, Han S, Lee C Imaging Sci Dent. 2024; 54(3):264-270.

PMID: 39371303 PMC: 11450406. DOI: 10.5624/isd.20240030.


Cone-beam CT landmark detection for measuring basal bone width: a retrospective validation study.

Dai J, Guo X, Zhang H, Xie H, Huang J, Huang Q BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1091.

PMID: 39277722 PMC: 11402203. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04798-2.