Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging.

INTRODUCTION Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become a routine imaging modality for many orthodontic clinics. However, questions remain about the amount of radiation patients are exposed to during the scans. This study determined the amounts of radiation potentially absorbed by a patient during orthodontic imaging with a CBCT machine with various scan settings compared with a conventional 2-dimensional digital x-ray machine. METHODS The radiation exposures delivered by a next generation i-CAT CBCT machine (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, Pa) at various scan settings and orthopantomograph OP100/OC100 digital x-ray machine (Instrumentarium Dental, Tuusula, Finland) during panoramic and cephalometric radiography were recorded using thermoluminescent dosimeters placed inside a head and neck phantom. The manufacturer-recommended settings for an average adult male were used for both types of machines. Effective doses were calculated using the tissue-weighting factors recommended by the 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection. RESULTS The effective doses at various voxel sizes and field of view settings ranged from 64.7 to 69.2 μSv for standard resolution CBCT scans (scan time 8.9 s) and 127.3 to 131.3 μSv for high resolution full field of view scans (scan time 17.8 s), and measured 134.2 μSv for a high-resolution landscape scan with a voxel size as would be used for SureSmile (OraMetrix, Richardson, Tex) therapy (scan time 26.9 s). The effective doses for digital panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs measured 21.5 and 4.5 μSv, respectively. CONCLUSIONS CBCT, although providing additional diagnostic and therapeutic benefits, also exposes patients to higher levels of radiation than conventional digital radiography.

[1]  David C Hatcher,et al.  Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. , 2010, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[2]  J. Ludlow A manufacturer's role in reducing the dose of cone beam computed tomography examinations: effect of beam filtration. , 2011, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[3]  Sharon L. Brooks,et al.  CBCT Dosimetry: Orthodontic Considerations , 2009 .

[4]  Arthur Curley,et al.  Cone beam CT--anatomic assessment and legal issues: the new standards of care. , 2009, Journal of the California Dental Association.

[5]  R Jacobs,et al.  Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[6]  S. Brooks,et al.  Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[7]  L. Louie,et al.  Efficiency and effectiveness of SureSmile. , 2010, World journal of orthodontics.

[8]  S. Kapila,et al.  The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. , 2011, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[9]  W. Eckelman,et al.  NCRP report no. 93: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland (1987). US$15.00 , 1988 .

[10]  G. Swennen,et al.  Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. , 2009, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[11]  A. Jacobson Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines , 2007 .

[12]  Adrian K. Dixon,et al.  Benefits and costs, an eternal balance , 2007 .

[13]  R Müller-Hartwich,et al.  SureSmile--CAD/CAM system for orthodontic treatment planning, simulation and fabrication of customized archwires. , 2007, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[14]  Gabriele Kaeppler,et al.  Applications of cone beam computed tomography in dental and oral medicine. , 2010, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[15]  Edwin J Zinman,et al.  Legal considerations in the use of cone beam computer tomography imaging. , 2010, Journal of the California Dental Association.

[16]  A. Chau,et al.  Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. , 2009, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[17]  Kostas Tsiklakis,et al.  Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[18]  J. Ludlow,et al.  Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. , 2008, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[19]  N. Drage,et al.  Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. , 2009, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  Jack Valentin,et al.  The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. , 2007, Annals of the ICRP.

[21]  W. Huda,et al.  Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. , 2008, Radiology.

[22]  A. Farman,et al.  Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. , 2006, Journal.

[23]  D. Hatcher,et al.  Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. , 2003, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[24]  R. E. Ellis,et al.  The distribution of active bone marrow in the adult. , 1961, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[26]  C. Dreyer Orthodontic radiographs. Guidelines, 3rd edition (2008) , 2008 .

[27]  George J Eckert,et al.  Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile™ method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy. , 2011, The Angle orthodontist.

[28]  S. Brooks,et al.  Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. , 2003, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[29]  Stuart C. White,et al.  Patient Image Selection Criteria for Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging , 2009 .

[30]  A. Ayoub,et al.  An overview of three-dimensional imaging in dentistry. , 2010, Dental update.

[31]  J Mah,et al.  Computer-assisted orthodontic treatment: the SureSmile process. , 2001, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[32]  Allan G. Farman,et al.  The Basics of Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography , 2009 .

[33]  M. Ivanovic,et al.  Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.