Comparison of Effective Dose for Imaging of Mandible Between Multi-detector CT and Cone-beam CT

Overview

Journal Imaging Sci Dent

Specialty Radiology

Date 2012 Jul 12

PMID 22783473

Citations 14

Authors

Dae-Kyo Jeong

Sang-Chul Lee

Kyung-Hoe Huh

Won-Jin Yi

Min-Suk Heo

Sam-Sun Lee

Soon-Chul Choi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effective dose for imaging of mandible between multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). An MDCT with low dose technique was also compared with them.

Materials And Methods: Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) chips were placed at 25 organ sites of an anthropomorphic phantom. The mandible of the phantom was exposed using 2 different types of MDCT units (Somatom Sensation 10 for standard-dose MDCT, Somatom Emotion 6 for low-dose MDCT) and 3 different CBCT units (AZ3000CT, Implagraphy, and Kavo 3D eXaM). The radiation absorbed dose was measured and the effective dose was calculated according to the ICRP 2007 report.

Results: The effective dose was the highest for Somatom Sensation 10 (425.84 µSv), followed by AZ3000CT (332.4 µSv), Somatom Emotion 6 (199.38 µSv), and 3D eXaM (111.6 µSv); it was the lowest for Implagraphy (83.09 µSv). The CBCT showed significant variation in dose level with different device.

Conclusion: The effective doses of MDCTs were not significantly different from those of CBCTs for imaging of mandible. The effective dose of MDCT could be markedly decreased by using the low-dose technique.

Citing Articles

Accuracy of the Hounsfield Unit Values Measured by Implant Planning Software.

Nagata K, Kouzai Y, Inaba K, Fujii M, Atsumi M, Kimoto K Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(12).

PMID: 39727470 PMC: 11674854. DOI: 10.3390/dj12120413.

Radiological investigation of acute mandibular injury.

Sheng K Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 13(2):165-171.

PMID: 36051802 PMC: 9426694. DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_27_19.

Imaging of Bone in the Head and Neck Region, is There More Than CT?.

Eley K, Delso G Curr Radiol Rep. 2022; 10(6):69-82.

PMID: 35463479 PMC: 9013214. DOI: 10.1007/s40134-022-00396-8.

Factors influencing the effective dose associated with CBCT: a systematic review.

da Silva Moura W, Chiqueto K, Pithon G, Santos Neves L, Castro R, Henriques J Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 23(3):1319-1330.

PMID: 30006685 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2561-4.

Ultralow Dose MSCT Imaging in Dental Implantology.

Widmann G, Al-Ekrish A Open Dent J. 2018; 12:87-93.

PMID: 29492174 PMC: 5814940. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010087.

References

Chau A, Fung K . Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107(4):559-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.009. View

Avendanio B, Frederiksen N, Benson B, Sokolowski T . Effective dose and risk assessment from detailed narrow beam radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996; 82(6):713-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(96)80448-3. View

Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G . Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33(2):83-6. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/28403350. View

Frederiksen N, Benson B, Sokolowski T . Effective dose and risk assessment from film tomography used for dental implant diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1994; 23(3):123-7. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.23.3.7835511. View

Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva M . Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008; 37(5):268-73. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/23424132. View

Frederiksen N, Benson B, Sokolowski T . Effective dose and risk assessment from computed tomography of the maxillofacial complex. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995; 24(1):55-8. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.24.1.8593910. View

Ludlow J, Ivanovic M . Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(1):106-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018. View

Underhill T, Chilvarquer I, Kimura K, Langlais R, McDavid W, Preece J . Radiobiologic risk estimation from dental radiology. Part I. Absorbed doses to critical organs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988; 66(1):111-20. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(88)90077-1. View

Mulkens T, Broers C, Fieuws S, Termote J, Bellnick P . Comparison of effective doses for low-dose MDCT and radiographic examination of sinuses in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(5):1611-8. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841611. View

10.

Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M . Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009; 38(6):367-78. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/15779208. View

11.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W . Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35(4):219-26. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323. View

12.

Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L . A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 75(2):265-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.042. View

13.

Hounsfield G . Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol. 1973; 46(552):1016-22. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016. View

14.

Nakagawa Y, Kobayashi K, Mishima A, Ishii H, Asada K, Ishibashi K . Preoperative application of limited cone beam computerized tomography as an assessment tool before minor oral surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 31(3):322-6. DOI: 10.1054/ijom.2001.0222. View

15.

Dula K, Mini R, van der Stelt P, Sanderink G, Schneeberger P, Buser D . Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: the Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001; 91(6):735-42. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2001.113591. View

16.

Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini P, Andreis I . A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998; 8(9):1558-64. DOI: 10.1007/s003300050586. View

17.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S . Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32(4):229-34. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/26310390. View

18.

Tack D, Widelec J, De Maertelaer V, Bailly J, Delcour C, Gevenois P . Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181(4):939-44. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810939. View

19.

Groves A, Owen K, Courtney H, Yates S, Goldstone K, Blake G . 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. Br J Radiol. 2004; 77(920):662-5. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/48307881. View

20.

Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A . Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2010; 115(4):600-11. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-010-0520-5. View