The effect of optimum, indication-specific imaging fields on the radiation exposure from CBCT examinations of impacted maxillary canines and mandibular third molars

References

• SEDENTEXCT Radiation protection no 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence-based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission. 2012. [cited 2022 Jan 9]. Available from: http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• İşman Ö, Yılmaz HH, Aktan AM, et al. Indication for cone beam computed tomography in children and young patients in a turkish subpopulation. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(3):183–190. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horner K, Barry S, Dave M, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21(4):407–426. doi: 10.1007/s40368-019-00504-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matzen L, Berkhout E. Cone beam CT imaging of the mandibular third molar: a position paper prepared by the european academy of DentoMaxilloFacial radiology (EADMFR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019;48(5):20190039. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20190039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühnisch J, Anttonen V, Duggal MS, et al. Best clinical practice guidance for prescribing dental radiographs in children and adolescents: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21(4):375–386. doi: 10.1007/s40368-019-00493-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland. Radiologisten tutkimusten ja toimenpiteiden määrät vuonna 2018. STUK-B:242. 2019. [cited 2020 March 25]. Available from: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-309-449-9
   Google Scholar
• Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCT – a meta-analysis of published data and additional data of nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(7):20159003. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20159003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutalik S, Tadinada A, Molina MR, et al. Effective doses of dental cone beam computed tomography: effect of 360-degree versus 180-degree rotation angles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020;130(4):433–446. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.04.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almuqrin AH, Tamam N, Abdelrazig A, et al. Organ dose and radiogenic risk in dental cone-beam computed tomography examinations. Radiat Phys Chem. 2020;176:108971. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2020.108971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo Rivas JA, Horner K, Thiruvenkatachari B, et al. Development of a low-dose protocol for cone beam CT examinations of the anterior maxilla in children. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1054):20150559. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kralik I, Faj D, Lauc T, et al. Dose area product in estimation of effective dose of the patients undergoing dental cone beam computed tomography examinations. J Radiol Prot. 2018;38(4):1412–1427. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/aae4e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, et al. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):35–40. doi: 10.1259/bjr/31419627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludlow JB, Walker C. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(6):802–817. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauwels R, Theodorakou C, Walker A, et al. Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(7):583–593. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/20920453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcu M, Hedesiu M, Salmon B, DIMITRA Research Group., et al. Estimation of the radiation dose for pediatric CBCT indications: a prospective study on ProMax3D. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28(3):300–309. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadu FM, Alzahrani AA, Almutairi MA, et al. The effect of varying cone beam computed tomography image resolution and field-of-view centralization on effective radiation dose. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(5):470–475. doi: 10.15537/smj.2018.5.21658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Ekestubbe A, et al. Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D accuitomo and 3D accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(2):72–79. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/60375385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim IH, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. Review of cone beam computed tomography guidelines in North america. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:136–145. [cited 2020 Dec 30]. Available from https://www.quintessence-partner.com/cone-beam-computed-tomography-guidelines/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi E, Ford NL. Measuring absorbed dose for i-CAT CBCT examinations in child, adolescent and adult phantoms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(6):20150018. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20150018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Ilo A-M, Waltimo-Sirén J, et al. Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT scans of impacted maxillary canines. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):897–905. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02904-1b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilo A-M, Ekholm M, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, et al. Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT-scans of impacted lower third molars: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):670. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-02029-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vassileva J, Stoyanov D. Quality control and patient dosimetry in dental cone beam CT. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;139(1-3):310–312. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Patient dosimetry for x-rays used in medical imaging report no. J Icru. 2005;5(74):2.
   Google Scholar
• Kim EK, Han WJ, Choi JW, et al. Estimation of the effective dose of dental cone-beam computed tomography using personal computer-based monte carlo software. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018;48(1):21–30. doi: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.1.21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Yoon J, Han S-S, et al. Dose assessment in dental cone-beam computed tomography: comparison of optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry with Monte Carlo method. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0219103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:2–4. ICRP publication 103
   Google Scholar
• ICRP. 1991. The 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37 (2-4)
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. : BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: the National Academies Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• ICRP. 1975. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. ICRP Publication 23. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Woodard HQ, White DR. The composition of body tissues. Br J Radiol. 1986;59(708):1209–1218. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-59-708-1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poludniowski G, Landry G, DeBlois F, et al. SpekCalc: a program to calculate photon spectra from tungsten anode x-ray tubes. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(19):N433–8. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/n01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher DR, Fahey FH. Appropriate use of effective dose in radiation protection and risk assessment. Health Phys. 2017;113(2):102–109. doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000000674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tapiovaara M. Siiskonen T. PCXMC 2.0: user’s Guide. 2008. [cited 2023 March 1]. Available from: https://www.stuk.fi/documents/12547/474783/stuk-tr7.pdf/6f42383b-be6d-468a-9a00-a49ca8c9ef31.
   Google Scholar
• Yeh JK, Chen CH. Estimated radiation risk of cancer from dental cone-beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics patients. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1) doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0592-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaasalainen T, Ekholm M, Siiskonen T, et al. Dental cone beam CT: an updated review. Phys Med. 2021;88:193–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.07.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadesjö N, Lynds R, Nilsson M, et al. Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines: cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(3):20170305. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20170305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Silveira PF, Fontana MP, Oliveira HW, et al. CBCT-based volume of simulated root resorption - influence of FOV and voxel size. Int Endod J. 2015;48(10):959–965. doi: 10.1111/iej.12390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(4):813–820. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjerklin K, Guitirokh CH. Maxillary incisor root resorption induced by ectopic canines. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(5):800–806. doi: 10.2319/011311-23.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koivisto J, Kiljunen T, Tapiovaara M, et al. Assessment of radiation exposure in dental cone-beam computerized tomography with the use of metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters and Monte Carlo simulations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;114(3):393–400. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.06.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICRP. Diagnostic reference levels in medical imaging. Ann. ICRP. 2017;46(1) ICRP Publication 135
   Google Scholar