Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Measurement of skin dose from cone-beam computed tomography imaging

  • Sercan Akyalcin1Email author,
  • Jeryl D English1,
  • Kenneth M Abramovitch2 and
  • Xiujiang J Rong3
Head & Face Medicine20139:28

https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-9-28

Received: 22 August 2013

Accepted: 2 October 2013

Published: 9 October 2013

Abstract

Objective

To measure surface skin dose from various cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanners using point-dosimeters.

Materials & methods

A head anthropomorphic phantom was used with nanoDOT optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters (Landauer Corp., Glenwood, IL) attached to various anatomic landmarks. The phantom was scanned using multiple exposure protocols for craniofacial evaluations in three different CBCT units and a conventional x-ray imaging system. The dosimeters were calibrated for each of the scan protocols on the different imaging systems. Peak skin dose and surface doses at the eye lens, thyroid, submandibular and parotid gland levels were measured.

Results

The measured skin doses ranged from 0.09 to 4.62 mGy depending on dosimeter positions and imaging systems. The average surface doses to the lens locations were ~4.0 mGy, well below the threshold for cataractogenesis (500 mGy). The results changed accordingly with x-ray tube output (mAs and kV) and also were sensitive to scan field of view (SFOV). As compared to the conventional panoramic and cephalometric imaging system, doses from all three CBCT systems were at least an order of magnitude higher.

Conclusions

Peak skin dose and surface doses at the eye lens, thyroid, and salivary gland levels measured from the CBCT imaging systems were lower than the thresholds to induce deterministic effects. However, our findings do not justify the routine use of CBCT imaging in orthodontics considering the lifetime-attributable risk to the individual.

Keywords

Skin dose Cone-beam computed tomography OSL dosimeters

Introduction

A three-dimensional radiographic examination of the craniofacial skeleton with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is indicated for a number of clinical conditions. However, like any x-ray exposure, CBCT scans also expose the patient to certain biologic risks of radiation. As the indications for CBCT imaging become more universal, so does the concern for radiation safety related to dental and orthodontic procedures [13].

In diagnostic imaging, exposure to x-ray radiation must be accompanied by a related benefit that outweighs the associated risks for the use of that radiation. Orthodontists, as practicing health-care providers, must remain cognizant of the risks if CBCT imaging is to become a more integral part of standard orthodontic practice. If so, it is important to know what the radiation doses are for orthodontic-indicated CBCT scans. There are already advocates for the universal use of CBCT scans to replace conventional radiographs. Their claim is based on the premise that the radiation doses from CBCT are lower than the combined radiation dose of a lateral cephalogram, panoramic radiograph and a full series of periapical radiographs [2, 4]. However, there is no conclusive evidence to fully support these views.

In CT radiation dosimetry, CT Dose Index (CTDI) and its variations such as CTDI100, CTDIW, and CTDIvol[57] have been used widely in comparing dose levels of different scanners and for the purpose of quality assurance. As its name states, CTDI is a dose descriptor, not a direct measurement of patient dose. Because it is measured by using a standardized, homogeneous, cylindrical phantom, it questionably represents the dose for objects of substantially different size, shape, or attenuation, like the human body [7]. Additionally, in the case of cone-beam geometry; the CTDI concept is no longer valid because of its wide-open beam. An alternative method has to be determined for representing radiation dose in CBCT scans. Ideally, in order to determine the dose to a point within the scan volume, a point (small) dosimeter is required. For such evaluations optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) 'dot’ dosimeters, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), small solid-state detectors, and metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFET) have been used. It was recently concluded that OSL dot dosimeters had good reproducibility and stability in both laboratory and field-tests and met the performance requirements of standards of the American National Standards Institute [8].

Radiation exposure puts the patient at risk of getting a radiation-induced cancer or heritable mutation, i.e., stochastic effect. To assess the patient radiation risk from a radiation-protection perspective, the effective dose unit of measurement is regarded as the most suitable dose index [9]. Effective dose takes into account the types of tissues being exposed and the amount of radiation dose to each tissue. It attempts to reflect the equivalent whole-body dose that results in a stochastic effect, which is equivalent to stochastic effect from the actual absorbed dose to those tissues irradiated in a non-uniform, partial body irradiation such as a CT scan [7].

Effective dose (Sv) is calculated by a formula that uses measured absorbed tissue/organ doses exposed during a radiographic procedure and the tissue weighting factors determined based on the radiosensitivity of each organ (ICRP 103). Research studies [1017] using human phantoms have overly reported the dose estimation from dental CBCT in Sv which is a unit of measure of effective dose for the estimation of whole-body risk in the context of stochastic detriment at low doses instead of Gy which is a hard-physical concept to be used for local radiation absorbed doses at these localized sites. Moreover, the effective dose from dental CBCT is typically low when compared to other medical CT scans mainly because dental CBCT is limited to exposing only the head; and the weighting factors of the organs in the head are relatively small. Calculations of exposure to more radiosensitive areas and larger areas such as gonadal tissues, breast, colon, lung and stomach are not considered. Although the radiation exposure from a dental CBCT is isolated to a portion of head, this area is usually repeatedly exposed. There is little or no published data on measured skin doses with the use of dental CBCT.

The objective of this study was to directly measure skin dose using OSL nanoDOT dosimeters from multiple operational scanning modes of three CBCT scanners and to compare them to similarly measured skin doses from conventional panoramic and cephalometric imaging.

Materials and methods

Four dental x-ray imaging systems were investigated in this study: three CBCT units and one conventional combined panoramic-cephalometric x-ray unit. The CBCT units were the Kodak 9500 (Kodak Dental Systems, Carestream Health, Rochester, NY, USA), i-CAT Next Generation (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA, USA), Galileos Comfort (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). The conventional unit was the ProMax pan/ceph x-ray unit (Planmeca U.S.A. Inc., Roselle, IL). CBCT scanners were operated under multiple scanning modes. Scan settings are listed in Table 1. Scan protocols were grouped by scan field of view (SFOV) size. Only medium and large SFOVs were included in the study since they are the most commonly used ones in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Volume diameters or cylinder heights between 10-16 cm were classified as 'medium’ and those greater than 16 cm were placed in the 'large’ category (Table 1).
Table 1

Scan settings of the CBCT and conventional x-ray imaging units used in the study

X-ray unit

Scan protocol

Tube voltage (kV)

mAs

Scan time (s)

sFOV (cmxcm)

Definition (voxel)

Kodak 9500

Medium

86

108

10.8 sec

15X9

0.2

Kodak 9500

Large

120

108

10.8 sec

20X18

0.3

iCAT Next Generation

Medium

120

18.54

8.9 sec

16X13

0.4

iCAT Next Generation

Medium

120

20.27

14.7 sec

16X13

0.25

iCAT Next Generation

Large

120

18.54

8.9 sec

23X17

0.3

iCAT Next Generation

Large

120

37.07

17.8 sec

23X17

0.3

Galileos Comfort

Medium

85

21

14 sec

15x15

0.3

Galileos Comfort

Medium

85

42

14 sec

15x15

0.3

ProMax panoramic

Standard panoramic 25X30

66

144

16 sec

  

ProMax cephalometric

Full cephalogram 30X27

68

112.2

18.7 sec

  
A head anthropomorphic phantom-- RS-110 (Radiology Support Devices (RSD) Inc., Long Beach, CA) (Figure 1) was used with nanoDOT dosimeters (Landauer Corp., Glenwood, IL) (Figure 2) attached to the surface area at the levels of following anatomic landmarks: eye lens, parotid, submandibular, and thyroid glands. RSD phantoms are constructed with skeletons that meet radiation interaction properties of both cortical bone and spongiosa as standardized by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Moreover, soft-tissue molds and skeleton molds are matched for anatomic fidelity and to simulate attenuation characteristics of an average adult human male subject. Specified radiosensitive tissues of interest were chosen to provide multiple skin dose readings of the craniofacial area and to also compare those to the threshold limits of the related organ doses at the investigated regions. The peak skin dose was computed by selecting the highest value of absorbed dose among the investigated radiosensitive regions of interest; eye lens, parotid, submandibular, thyroid doses were computed by averaging the absorbed dose for nanoDOTS tested within that region.
Figure 1

RS-110 anthropometric head phantom used in this study with the levels where nanoDOTS were located. A- Eye lens B- Parotid gland C- Submandibular gland D- Thyroid gland.

Figure 2

nanoDOT OSL dosimeters (Landauer Corp., Glenwood, IL).

The phantom was positioned with the midsagittal plane in the center of each image and the occlusal plane parallel to the scan rotation plane (Figure 3). Three individual nanoDOTS were used for each of the image scans at each scan site. This was done to compare the reliability of the dose readings using intraclass coefficients (ICCs). Exposed nanoDOTS were processed using a microStar reader (Landauer Corp., Glenwood, IL). The counts read out from the microStar reader were converted to absorbed dose in milligrays (mGy) using unit and scan protocol specific calibration factors. The calibrations were performed for each unit and the energies (kVp) selected for dose measurements. During a calibration, 2-3 nanoDOTs were placed next to a small volume ion chamber (10X5-0.6 Modern Wide Beam Multi-Slice CT Chamber, RadCal Corporation Monrovia, CA) in air and at the isocenter of the scan rotation. A RadCal MDH model 1515 electrometer was used to read out signals from the ion chamber. This onsite user calibration minimizes energy dependence of the nanoDOTs and hence ensures accurate dose measurements throughout this study. It is critical to perform such calibrations for each system since the vendor calibration was performed using a general radiographic unit with energy spectra and beam conditions significantly different from CBCT units.
Figure 3

Example of the axial, coronal and sagittal images obtained with KODAK 9500 scanner using the head anthropomorphic phantom: a- Medium FOV b- Large FOV.

Results

ICCs derived from three sets of nanoDOTS ranged between 0.97-0.99 and indicated a high level of accuracy. Therefore, the average of the three exposures was used for the individual dose measurements. The peak skin dose and doses at the investigated landmarks were calculated as absorbed dose and were presented in Table 2. The skin doses ranged from 0.09 to 4.62 mGy. The wide range was caused by the differences between the CBCT scanners and the conventional x-ray unit as well as the differences in imaging protocols such as kilovolt (kV) and the tube current-time product (mAs), especially scanning field of view (sFOV). iCAT scanner had consistently lower doses for all the variables as compared to other scanners.
Table 2

Peak skin and absorbed tissue doses for the investigated scan protocols

X-ray unit

kV

mAs

sFOV

Skin

Eye lens

Parotid

Submandibular

Thyroid

Dose (mGy)

Dose (mGy)

Dose (mGy)

Dose (mGy)

Dose (mGy)

Kodak 9500

86

108

15×9

3.58

0.42

2.88

3.04

0.32

Kodak 9500

120

108

20×18

4.15

3.55

3.57

3.17

0.45

iCAT Next Generation

120

18.54

16×13

1.44

0.92

1.15

1.21

0.24

iCAT Next Generation

120

20.27

16×13

2.51

1.60

2.05

1.79

0.25

iCAT Next Generation

120

18.54

23×17

2.08

1.41

1.93

1.79

0.25

iCAT Next Generation

120

37.07

23×17

2.60

1.75

2.11

2.23

0.39

Galileos Comfort

85

21

15×15

2.49

0.58

2.45

1.93

0.36

Galileos Comfort

85

42

15×15

4.62

0.94

4.46

3.61

0.46

ProMax panoramic

66

144

 

0.26

0.05

0.24

0.14

0.04

ProMax cephalometric

68

112.2

 

0.09

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.05

The surface doses to the locations of the eyes were ~4.0 mGy, well below the 500 mGy threshold for possibly causing cataract development. Relatively higher radiation doses were recorded for submandibular and parotid regions in all the CBCT protocols. Lowest doses were obtained for the thyroid region partly due to the fact that this area is not covered by the sFOV and therefore is not directly exposed. Similar results were obtained for the eyes in medium size sFOV protocols. Conventional radiographs had the lowest doses for all of the variables tested. However, slight differences between the cephalometric and panoramic images were observed due to their coverage field as expected.

Discussion

Dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has rapidly gained popularity among the dental specialties over the last decade. It is a reality that individuals that require the investigation of the maxillofacial structures in all three dimensions of the space, as usually is the case in orthodontics and maxillofacial surgery, will benefit from CBCT imaging. Although there is a lack of definitive data, recent reviews signify the importance of radiation dose generated by CBCT scanning as a cause for concern [14, 18, 19]. News media is very sensitive on the unjustified use of CBCT scans on young children and adolescents in the orthodontic practice [20]. A recent article [21] that reported links between some dental x-rays and an increased risk of intracranial meningioma has become a public sensation and has led professionals to question the applicability of the presented data to other dental diagnostic tools, which depend on more radiation dose including CBCT.

In reality, it is extremely difficult to determine the risks of using CBCT scanners in terms of fatal cancer development because of the confounding factors in dose estimation such as individual differences in patients’ physical attributes, biological susceptibility and challenges with dose estimation. However, without dose measurements operators lack the objective data needed to approximately adjust mAs or tube potential in order to avoid excessive patient dose [7].

This study mainly focused on the peak skin dose together with the surface entry doses for various other radiosensitive tissues/organs. The rationale was to compare various operational modes of multiple CBCT scanners with each other and more importantly with the conventional radiographs that are routinely used in orthodontic treatment. Based on the investigated CBCT protocols, peak skin dose at any point did not exceed 4.62 mGy, which is well below 1000 mGy. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) guidelines suggest that 2000 mGy may cause transient erythema and temporary epilation [2224]. In medical imaging, 2000 mGy is also regarded as the threshold for deterministic effects [25, 26]. However, for most patients, clinically important skin and hair reactions occur only when the skin dose is higher than 5000 mGy [27]. As evidenced in this paper, CBCT exposure for orthodontic exams is less than 2.5% that of skin threshold dose.

Although there is a wide variation in our results for the skin dose due to different scanning protocols, one cannot claim the superiority of one scanner over another solely based on the reported dose information. Each CBCT scanner has different settings and energy levels. Perhaps, the use of pulsed x-ray beam exposure in this study was also a major reason for considerable variation in reported cone-beam unit dosimetry. However, our results in Table 2 clearly demonstrate that when all the other factors were held constant, mAs, kV, and sFOV settings had effects on the observed radiation doses, with mAs setting being the most effective. Despite the fact that iCAT scanner had a higher kV setting, consistently lower doses were observed in all the iCAT scanner protocols compared to the others. This may be explained by lower mAs settings of this device. Similarly, when the mAs setting of the Galileos was increased from 21 to 42, peak skin dose increased almost 2 times. As higher tube currents are often used for larger patients to maintain image quality, this finding suggests that mAs value should be kept minimum wherever possible as long as there is no significant compromise in the image quality. In computed radiography overexposure will only reduce image noise and can occur without awareness, as CBCT images never look overexposed. This is due to the normalization process of patient attenuation with the CBCT technique. Therefore, operators need to be informed about the purpose of the scan before they set the tube current to the default mode or to a higher setting unless otherwise is instructed.

Radiation dose at the level of the eyes ranged between 0.42 to 3.55 mGy. Current permissible exposure limits to eyes are similar to the skin dose [23, 24]. However, according to newer studies the threshold for cataractogenesis is actually much lower. Recently published data on Chernobyl cleanup workers revealed a significant increase in cataract rates with increasing radiation doses, which were, for the most part, less than 500 mGy [28]. Additionally, Chodick et al. [29], argued that likelihood of cataract formation increased with increasing exposure to ionizing radiation with no apparent threshold level. On the contrary, it was also suggested that there was no association between computed tomography scans of the head history and cataract [30]. The evidence from the literature seems to be inconclusive on the radiation induced cataract development. However, there is still 140 times less risk with the maximum dose obtained with the diagnostic CBCT protocols used in this study when compared to the recent Chernobyl data [28]. Additionally, sFOV may be changed from large to medium, depending on the imaging need, to avoid the exposure of the eyes when monitoring the jaws only. There will still be scattered radiation as is the case with thyroid gland. Our results demonstrated that radiation dose at the thyroid level had the least variability since it is not within direct exposure field. Even then a dose range of 0.24-0.46 mGy was observed at that level that can be considered as low. Additionally, Qu et al [31]. recently demonstrated that with the use of thyroid collars, dose to thyroid and oesophagus could effectively be reduced to 48.7% and 41.7%, respectively. It was also shown that the radiation dose to the eye could be reduced by over 60% through the use of leaded glasses during a CBCT examination [32].

One of the unique aspects of the current study was to utilize the Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) 'dot’ dosimeters. It was already shown that single-irradiation measurements with bleaching after each OSL readout was found to be associated with a 3.3% reproducibility [33]. In our study, we were also able to observe high reproducibility for dose measurements with the use of OSL dots. In order to compare conventional radiographs to CBCT scanners, absorbed dose was preferred to a whole-body effective dose, which would require too many assumptions since dental CBCT only exposes the head region. Reported values enable a sound comparison between the procedures for the investigated parameters. Relatively much lower point doses were obtained with both the panoramic and cephalometric modes of ProMax unit. It should, however, be remembered that dose differences are due to the differences in geometry and specific parameters of the CBCT scanners. While the dose range is too wide between the conventional radiographs and CBCT scanners, too much attention to radiogenic risk may also distract attention from other risks and potential benefits, which may not be in the patient’s best interest [34]. In that sense it is not proper to misrepresent an individual’s radiation history as part of the risk of the proposed procedure. Due to the very recent advisory statement by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs [35], only a trained clinician must decide if a procedure can be justified by itself on the basis of radiation and other risks of that procedure, the patient’s clinical status, and the benefits expected from that procedure. Although doses reported in this paper may be perceived as very low when compared to those in medical imaging, a lifetime-attributable risk to the individual should also be considered.

Conclusions

When planning orthodontic treatment, conventional panoramic and cephalometric radiographs are certainly dose sparing when compared to CBCT scans. However, when indicated, CBCT imaging should be considered with a radiation conscious approach. As evidenced in this paper, scan parameters such as mAs and FOV settings of the CBCT scanners should be used effectively depending on the imaging and individual patient needs for dose reduction purposes. Hence features of variable kVp stations, mAs selections, and radiation beam collimation settings are preferable to a well designed CBCT system for dental imaging.

Abbreviations

CBCT: 

Cone-beam computed tomography

OSL: 

Optically stimulated luminescence

SFOV: 

Scanning field of view

CTDI: 

CT Dose Index

TLDs: 

Thermoluminescent dosimeters

MOSFET: 

Metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors

ICRU: 

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements

ICRP: 

The International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthodontics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Dentistry
(2)
Oral Diagnosis, Radiology, and Pathology, Loma Linda University, School of Dentistry
(3)
Department of Imaging Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center

References

  1. Scholz RP: The radiology decision. Semin Orthod. 2011, 17: 15-19. 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumrind S: The road to three-dimensional imaging in orthodontics. Semin Orthod. 2011, 17: 2-12. 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Halazonetis DJ: Cone-beam computed tomography is not the imaging technique of choice for comprehensive orthodontic assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012, 141: 403-411. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.02.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Larson BE: Cone-beam computed tomography is the imaging technique of choice for comprehensive orthodontic assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012, 141: 402-410. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.02.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Geleijns J, Salvadó Artells M, De Bruin PW, Matter R, Muramatsu Y, McNitt-Gray MF: Computed tomography dose assessment for a 160 mm wide, 320 detector row, cone beam CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2009, 54: 3141-3159. 10.1088/0031-9155/54/10/012.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. McNitt-Gray MF: AAPM/RSNA Physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT. Radiation Dose in CT. Radiographics. 2002, 22: 1541-1553. 10.1148/rg.226025128.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauhs JA, Vrieze TJ, Primak AN, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH: CT Dosimetry: Comparison of measurement techniques and devices. Radiographics. 2008, 28: 245-253. 10.1148/rg.281075024.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Timilsina B, Gesell TF: Independent evaluation of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) 'dot’ dosemeters for environmental monitoring. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011, 143: 27-32. 10.1093/rpd/ncq289. Epub 2010 Oct 14View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K: SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium: Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012, 81: 267-271. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB: Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006, 35: 219-226. 10.1259/dmfr/14340323.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ludlow JB, 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: 106-114. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E: Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008, 133: 640.e1-5-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MA: Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008, 37: 268-273. 10.1259/dmfr/23424132.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R: Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009, 71: 461-468. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Käser 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: 367-378. 10.1259/dmfr/15779208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW: Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol. 2009, 82: 35-40. 10.1259/bjr/31419627.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Grünheid T, Kolbeck Schieck JR, Pliska BT, Ahmad M, Larson BE: Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012, 141: 436-443. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.024.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Khelemsky R: The ethics of routine use of advanced diagnostic technology. J Am Coll Dent. 2011, 78: 35-39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Vlijmen OJ, Kuijpers MA, Bergé SJ, Schols JG, Maal TJ, Breuning H, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM: Evidence supporting the use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012, 143: 241-252.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bogdanich W, McGinty CJ: Radiation worries for children in dentist’s hair. The New York Times. 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/us/23scan.html?_r=3 (Accessed July 29, 2013)Google Scholar
  21. Claus EB, Calvocoressi L, Bondy ML, Schildkraut JM, Wiemels JL, Wrensch M: Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma. Cancer. 2012, 118: 4530-4537. 10.1002/cncr.26625.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang D, Cagnon CH, Villablanca JP, McCollough CH, Cody DD, Stevens DM, Zankl M, Demarco JJ, Turner AC, Khatonabadi M, McNitt-Gray MF: Peak skin and eye lens radiation dose from brain perfusion CT based on Monte Carlo simulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012, 98: 412-417.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. International commission on radiological protection (ICRP): Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection: ICRP publication 60. Ann ICRP. 1991, 21: 1-201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. International commission on radiological protection (ICRP): Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures: ICRP publication 85. Ann ICRP. 2000, 30: 7-67.Google Scholar
  25. Zontar D, Kuhelj D, Skrk D, Zdesar U: Patient peak skin doses from cardiac interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010, 139: 262-265. 10.1093/rpd/ncq013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ying CK, Kandaiya S: Patient skin dose measurements during coronary interventional procedures using Gafchromic film. J Radiol Prot. 2010, 30: 585-596. 10.1088/0952-4746/30/3/012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ: Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology. 2010, 254: 326-341. 10.1148/radiol.2542082312.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Worgul BV, Kundiyev Y, Sergiyenko N, Chumak VV, Vitte PM, Medvedovsky C, Bakhanova EV, Junk AK, Kyrychenko OY, Musijachenko NV, Shylo SA, Vitte OP, Xu S, Xue X, Shore RE: Cataract among Chernobyl cleanup workers: implications regarding permissible eye exposure. Radiat Res. 2007, 167: 233-243. 10.1667/RR0298.1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M, Alexander BH, Freedman DM, Doody MM, Cheung LC, Simon SL, Weinstock RM, Bouville A, Sigurdson AJ: Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol. 2008, 168: 620-631. 10.1093/aje/kwn171.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Hourihan F, Mitchell P, Cumming RG: Possible associations between computed tomography scan and cataract: the blue mountains eye study. Am J Public Health. 1999, 89: 1864-1866. 10.2105/AJPH.89.12.1864.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Qu X, Li G, Sanderink G, Zhang Z, Ma X: Dose reduction of cone beam CT scanning for the entire oral and maxillofacial regions with thyroid collars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012, 41: 373-378. 10.1259/dmfr/30200901.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Prins R, Dauer LT, Colosi DC, Quinn B, Kleiman NJ, Bohle GC, Holohan B, Al-Najjar A, Fernandez T, Bonvento M, Faber RD, Ching H, Goren AD: Significant reduction in dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) eye dose through the use of leaded glasses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011, 112: 502-507. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.04.041.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Al-Senan RM, Hatab MR: Characteristics of an OSLD in the diagnostic energy range. Med Phys. 2011, 38: 4396-4405. 10.1118/1.3602456.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Balter S, Zanzonico P, Reiss GR, Moses JW: Radiation is not the only risk. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011, 196: 762-767. 10.2214/AJR.10.5982.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. The American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs: The use of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: an advisory statement from the American dental association council on scientific affairs. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012, 143: 899-902.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Akyalcin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.