Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT

Clicks: 15
ID: 303413
2006
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #1 of 46 articles by views in dentomaxillofacial radiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), which provides a lower dose, lower cost alternative to conventional CT, is being used with increasing frequency in the practice of oral and maxillofacial radiology. This study provides comparative measurements of effective dose for three commercially available, large (12'') field-of-view (FOV), CBCT units: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT.Thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) were placed at 24 sites throughout the layers of the head and neck of a tissue-equivalent human skull RANDO phantom. Depending on availability, the 12'' FOV and smaller FOV scanning modes were used with similar phantom positioning geometry for each CBCT unit. Radiation weighted doses to individual organs were summed using 1990 (E(1990)) and proposed 2005 (E(2005 draft)) ICRP tissue weighting factors to calculate two measures of whole-body effective dose. Dose as a multiple of a representative panoramic radiography dose was also calculated.For repeated runs dosimetry was generally reproducible within 2.5%. Calculated doses in microSv [corrected] (E(1990), E(2005 draft)) were NewTom3G (45, 59), i-CAT (135, 193) and CB Mercuray (477, 558). These are 4 to 42 times greater than comparable panoramic examination doses (6.3 microSv [corrected] 13.3 mSv). Reductions in dose were seen with reduction in field size and mA and kV technique factors.CBCT dose varies substantially depending on the device, FOV and selected technique factors. Effective dose detriment is several to many times higher than conventional panoramic imaging and an order of magnitude or more less than reported doses for conventional CT.
Reference Key
openalex_W2132832652 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors J B Ludlow, LE Davies-Ludlow, SL Brooks, William Howerton
Journal dentomaxillofacial radiology
Year 2006
DOI
10.1259/dmfr/14340323
URL
https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14340323
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.