Key Points
-
This article aims to guide readers in taking the correct purchase/use decision of digital radiographic equipment, based on scientific evidence, by achieving a proper balance between diagnostic quality and radiation dose.
-
There is a lower radiation dose to the salivary gland when indirect digital rather than direct cephalometric radiography is carried out.
-
Their image quality is comparable for both direct and indirect digital cephalometric radiography.
Abstract
Aim The aim of this study was to measure organ doses and calculate the effective dose for indirect and direct digital cephalometric exposures.
Material and methods Indirect digital cephalometric exposures were made of a Rando® phantom head using a Cranex Tome® multipurpose unit with storage phosphor plates from Agfa and the direct digital (Charge Coupled Device, CCD) exposures were made with a Proline Ceph CM® unit. Exposure settings were 70 kV and 4 mAs for indirect digital exposures. Direct digital exposures were made with 70 kV, 10 mA and a total scanning time of 23 s. TLD700® dosemeters were used to measure organ doses, and the effective doses were calculated with (effective dosesal) and without inclusion of the salivary glands. A pilot study was carried out to compare diagnostic image quality of both imaging modalities.
Results Effective doses were 1.7 μSv for direct digital and 1.6 μSv for indirect digital cephalometric imaging. When salivary glands were included in the calculation, effective dosessal were 3.4 μSv and 2.2 μSv respectively. Organ doses were higher for direct digital imaging, except for the thyroid gland, where the organ doses were comparable. Diagnostic image quality of indirect and direct digital cephalometric images seemed comparable.
Conclusion Effective dose and effective dosesal were higher for direct digital cephalometric exposure compared with indirect digital exposure. Organ doses were higher for direct digital cephalography. From preliminary data, it may be presumed that diagnostic image quality of indirect and direct digital cephalometric images are comparable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Brettle DS, Workman A, Ellwood RP, Launders JH, Horner K, Davies RM . The imaging performance of a storage phosphor system for dental radiography. Br J Radiol 1996; 69: 256–261.
Lim KF, Loh EE-M, Hong YH . Intra-oral computed radiography — an in vitro evaluation. J Dent 1996; 24: 359–364.
Velders XL, Sanderink GCH, van der Stelt PF . Dose reduction of two digital sensor systems measuring file lengths. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996; 81: 607–612.
Huysmans MCD, Hintze H, Wenzel A . Effect of exposure time on in vitro caries diagnosis using the Digora system. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 15–20.
Yoshiura K, Kawazu T, Chikui T, Tatsumi M, Tokumori K, Tanaka T, Kanda S . Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intra-oral radiography systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 123–129.
Dula K, Sanderink G, van der Stelt PF, Mini R, Buser D . Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in digital panoramic radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 86: 227–233.
Farman TT, Farman AG, Kelly MS, Firriolo FJ, Yancey JM, Stewart AV . Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography: effect of beam energy on radiation exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 36–40.
Dannewitz B, Hassfeld S, Eickholz P, Muhling J . Effect of dose reduction in digital dental panoramic radiography on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 50–55.
Gijbels F, Bou Serhal C, Willems G, Bosmans H, Sanderink G, Persoons M, Jacobs R . Diagnostic yield of conventional and digital cephalometric images: a human cadaver study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30: 101–105.
Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Wyatt J, Van Dam J, Nowak B, Jacobs R . Radiation doses of collimated vs non-collimated cephalometric exposures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 128–133.
Wall BF, Fisher ES, Paynter R, Hudson A, Bird PD . Doses to patients from pantomographic and conventional dental radiography. Br J Radiol 1979; 52: 727–734.
Velders XL, van Aken J, van der Stelt PF . Absorbed dose to organs in the head and neck from bitewing radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20: 161–165.
Velders XL, van Aken J, van der Stelt PF . Risk assessment from bitewing radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20: 209–213.
Gilda JE, Maillie HD . Dosimetry of absorbed radiation in radiographic cephalometry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992; 73: 638–643.
Hayakawa Y, Fujimori H, Kuroyanagi K . Absorbed doses with intra-oral radiography. Function of various technical parameters. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 519–524.
Farman TT, Farman AG, Kelly MS, Firriolo FJ, Yancey JM, Stewart AV . Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography; effect of beam energy on radiation exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 36–40.
Bou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Gijbels F, Bosmans H, Hermans R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D . Absorbed doses from spiral CT and conventional spiral tomography: a phantom vs. cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 473–478.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication No. 60. Ann. ICRP 1991; 21: 1–3.
Lecomber AR, Downes SL, Mokhtari M, Faulkner K . Optimisation of patient doses in programmable dental panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 107–112.
Preston-Martin S, Henderson BE, Bernstein L . Medical and dental x rays as risk factors for recently diagnosed tumors of the head. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1985; 69: 175–179.
Preston-Martin S, Thomas DC, White SC, Cohen D . Prior exposure to medical and dental x-rays related to tumors of the parotid gland. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80: 943–949.
Preston-Martin S, White SC . Brain and salivary gland tumors related to prior dental radiography: implications for current practice. J Am Dent Assoc 1990; 120: 151–158.
Horn-Ross PL, Ljung BM, Morrow M . Environmental factors and the risk of salivary gland cancer. Epidemiol 1997; 8: 414–419.
Huda W, Sandison G . Estimation of mean organ doses in diagnostic radiology from Rando phantom measurements. Health Physics 1984; 47: 463–467.
ICRP Publication 41. Nonstochastic effects of ionizing radiation. Ann ICRP 1984; 14: paragraph 3.
Visser H, Rödig T, Hermann K-P . Dose reduction by direct-digital cephalometric radiography. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 159–163.
Trpkova B, Major P, Prasad N, Nebbe B . Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: A Meta Analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 1997; 112: 165–170.
Näslund E-B, Kruger M, Petersson A, Hansen K . Analysis of low-dose digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 136–139.
Rossman K, Wiley B . The central problem in the study of radiographic image quality. Radiol 1970; 96: 113–118.
Liu YT, Gravely JF . The effect of beam collimation in lateral radiographic cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1991; 18: 119–124.
Acknowledgements
Reinhilde Jacobs is a postdoctoral researcher of the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed Paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gijbels, F., Sanderink, G., Wyatt, J. et al. Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography. Br Dent J 197, 149–152 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811532
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811532
This article is cited by
-
Pediatric cleft palate patients show a 3- to 5-fold increase in cumulative radiation exposure from dental radiology compared with an age- and gender-matched population: a retrospective cohort study
Clinical Oral Investigations (2018)
-
Cone beam computed tomography
international journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine (2015)
-
Quantitative Evaluation of Patient Movement during Simulated Acquisition of Cephalometric Radiographs
Journal of Digital Imaging (2011)
-
Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice
European Radiology (2010)
-
Radiation doses of digital cephalometric radiography
British Dental Journal (2004)
