Radiobiological Risks Following Dentomaxillofacial Imaging: Should We Be Concerned?

Overview

Journal Dentomaxillofac Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Date 2021 May 14

PMID 33989056

Citations 6

Authors

Niels Belmans

Anne Caroline Oenning

Benjamin Salmon

Bjorn Baselet

Kevin Tabury

Stephane Lucas

Ivo Lambrichts

Marjan Moreels

Reinhilde Jacobs

Sarah Baatout

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This review aimed to present studies that prospectively investigated biological effects in patients following diagnostic dentomaxillofacial radiology (DMFR).

Methods: Literature was systematically searched to retrieve all studies assessing radiobiological effects of using X-ray imaging in the dentomaxillofacial area, with reference to radiobiological outcomes for other imaging modalities and fields.

Results: There is a lot of variability in the reported radiobiological assessment methods and radiation dose measures, making comparisons of radiobiological studies challenging. Most radiological DMFR studies are focusing on genotoxicity and cytotoxicity, data for 2D dentomaxillofacial radiographs, albeit with some methodological weakness biasing the results. For CBCT, available evidence is limited and few studies include comparative data on both adults and children.

Conclusions: In the future, one will have to strive towards patient-specific measures by considering age, gender and other individual radiation sensitivity-related factors. Ultimately, future radioprotection strategies should build further on the concept of personalized medicine, with patient-specific optimization of the imaging protocol, based on radiobiological variables.

Citing Articles

Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Effects of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Multidetector Computed Tomography on Exfoliated Buccal Epithelial Cells.

Jahanshahiafshar Z, Ghorbani H, Seyedmajidi M, Nabahati M, Ebrahimnejad Gorji K, Seyedmajidi S Iran J Med Sci. 2023; 48(6):572-581.

PMID: 38094288 PMC: 10715117. DOI: 10.30476/IJMS.2023.96522.2807.

Creation of Dimicleft radiological cleft phantom skulls using reversed virtual planning technique.

Palvolgyi L, Kesztyus A, Shujaat S, Jacobs R, Nagy K Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023; 52(7):20230121.

PMID: 37395648 PMC: 10552124. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20230121.

Feasibility of photon-counting computed tomography as a novel imaging modality for challenging endodontic diagnostic tasks.

Fontenele R, Picoli F, Pinto J, Coudyzer W, Vasconcelos K, Farias Gomes A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):6266.

PMID: 37069172 PMC: 10110619. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-33322-9.

Monitoring cone-beam CT radiation dose levels in a University Hospital.

Brasil D, Merken K, Binst J, Bosmans H, Haiter-Neto F, Jacobs R Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023; 52(3):20220213.

PMID: 36802857 PMC: 9944015. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20220213.

Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity effects of x-rays on the oral mucosa epithelium at different fields of view: A cone beam computed tomography technique.

Faeli Ghadikolaei R, Ghorbani H, Seyedmajidi M, Ebrahimnejad Gorji K, Moudi E, Seyedmajidi S Caspian J Intern Med. 2023; 14(1):121-127.

PMID: 36741479 PMC: 9878913. DOI: 10.22088/cjim.14.1.121.

References

Kuefner M, Hinkmann F, Alibek S, Azoulay S, Anders K, Kalender W . Reduction of X-ray induced DNA double-strand breaks in blood lymphocytes during coronary CT angiography using high-pitch spiral data acquisition with prospective ECG-triggering. Invest Radiol. 2010; 45(4):182-7. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181d3eddf. View

Stephan G, Schneider K, Panzer W, Walsh L, Oestreicher U . Enhanced yield of chromosome aberrations after CT examinations in paediatric patients. Int J Radiat Biol. 2007; 83(5):281-7. DOI: 10.1080/09553000701283816. View

Ribeiro D, Sannomiya E, Pozzi R, Miranda S, Angelieri F . Cellular death but not genetic damage in oral mucosa cells after exposure to digital lateral radiography. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 15(3):357-60. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0402-1. View

Li G, Yang P, Hao S, Hu W, Liang C, Zou B . Buccal mucosa cell damage in individuals following dental X-ray examinations. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):2509. PMC: 5802780. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20964-3. View

Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S . Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging. 2015; 6(1):1-16. PMC: 4330237. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-014-0379-4. View

De Felice F, Di Carlo G, Saccucci M, Tombolini V, Polimeni A . Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Children: Clinical Effectiveness and Cancer Risk due to Radiation Exposure. Oncology. 2019; 96(4):173-178. DOI: 10.1159/000497059. View

Price J . An oral radiology perspective of the recent joint ANS-HPS low dose radiation conference. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019; 128(3):187-190. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2019.06.013. View

Ribeiro D . Evidence of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of X-rays in the oral mucosa epithelium of adults subjected to cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018; 48(6):20180299. PMC: 6747437. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20180299. View

Carlin V, Artioli A, Matsumoto M, Filho H, Borgo E, Oshima C . Biomonitoring of DNA damage and cytotoxicity in individuals exposed to cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010; 39(5):295-9. PMC: 3520249. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/17573156. View

10.

Land C . Low-dose extrapolation of radiation health risks: some implications of uncertainty for radiation protection at low doses. Health Phys. 2009; 97(5):407-15. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181b1871b. View

11.

Popova L, Kishkilova D, Hadjidekova V, Hristova R, Atanasova P, Hadjidekova V . Micronucleus test in buccal epithelium cells from patients subjected to panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36(3):168-71. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/29193561. View

12.

da Fonte J, Andrade T, Albuquerque Jr R, de Melo M, Takeshita W . Evidence of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of X-rays in the oral mucosa epithelium of adults subjected to cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017; 47(2):20170160. PMC: 5965904. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20170160. View

13.

Pauwels R . Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015; 165(1-4):156-61. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncv057. View

14.

Boice Jr J . The linear nonthreshold (LNT) model as used in radiation protection: an NCRP update. Int J Radiat Biol. 2017; 93(10):1079-1092. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2017.1328750. View

15.

Grudzenski S, Kuefner M, Heckmann M, Uder M, Lobrich M . Contrast medium-enhanced radiation damage caused by CT examinations. Radiology. 2009; 253(3):706-14. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2533090468. View

16.

Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, White S . Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139(9):1237-43. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339. View

17.

Tang F, Loganovsky K . Low dose or low dose rate ionizing radiation-induced health effect in the human. J Environ Radioact. 2018; 192:32-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2018.05.018. View

18.

Bushberg J . Eleventh annual Warren K. Sinclair keynote address-science, radiation protection and NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future. Health Phys. 2015; 108(2):115-23. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000228. View

19.

Signorelli L, Patcas R, Peltomaki T, Schatzle M . Radiation dose of cone-beam computed tomography compared to conventional radiographs in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop. 2016; 77(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-015-0002-4. View

20.

Oenning A, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B . Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol. 2017; 48(3):308-316. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-017-4012-9. View