Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Radiology Research and Practice logoLink to Radiology Research and Practice
. 2021 Dec 10;2021:6924314. doi: 10.1155/2021/6924314

A Review of Doses for Dental Imaging in 2010–2020 and Development of a Web Dose Calculator

Hawon Lee 1,2,✉, Andreu Badal 2
PMCID: PMC8767401  PMID: 35070450

Abstract

Dental imaging is one of the most common types of diagnostic radiological procedures in modern medicine. We introduce a comprehensive table of organ doses received by patients in dental imaging procedures extracted from literature and a new web application to visualize the summarized dose information. We analyzed articles, published after 2010, from PubMed on organ and effective doses delivered by dental imaging procedures, including intraoral radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and summarized doses by dosimetry method, machine model, patient age, and technical parameters. Mean effective doses delivered by intraoral, 1.32 (0.60–2.56) μSv, and panoramic, 17.93 (3.47–75.00) μSv, procedures were found to be about1% and 15% of that delivered by CBCT, 121.09 (17.10–392.20) μSv, respectively. In CBCT imaging, child phantoms received about 29% more effective dose than the adult phantoms received. The effective dose of a large field of view (FOV) (>150 cm2) was about 1.6 times greater than that of a small FOV (<50 cm2). The maximum CBCT effective dose with a large FOV for children, 392.2 μSv, was about 13% of theeffective dose that a person receives on average every year from natural radiation, 3110 μSv. Monte Carlo simulations of representative cases of the three dental imaging procedures were then conducted to estimate and visualize the dose distribution within the head. The user-friendly interactive web application (available at http://dentaldose.org) receives user input, such as the number of intraoral radiographs taken, and displays total organ and effective doses, dose distribution maps, and a comparison with other medical and natural sources of radiation. The web dose calculator provides a practical resource for patients interested in understanding the radiation doses delivered by dental imaging procedures.

1. Introduction

Dental imaging is one of the most common types of diagnostic radiological procedures taken by the average person. Popular dental imaging procedures include intraoral radiography, which has the longest history of use, followed by panoramic radiography, and more recently, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) [1]. Intraoral radiography, a simple two-dimensional (2D) projection imaging, is often used to detect periodontal disease and cavities at regular dental check-ups. Panoramic radiography, a more comprehensive 2D image that combines a series of narrow 2D images, has been widely used to provide a wide range of information about the dentition and jaws. Introduced in the late 1990s, three-dimensional (3D) imaging technology, CBCT, offers a comprehensive set of cross-sectional images, the ability of vertical scanning, and real-time intraoperative assessment. All three procedures expose different portions of the head, from small parts of the teeth to the whole lower head, to ionizing radiation. There are concerns about the increasing use of imaging procedures as well as the resulting radiation dose, especially for pediatric patients [2, 3].

Absorbed dose is defined as the energy deposited to a given volume divided by the mass (measured in gray, Gy, in the International System of Units) [4]. Equivalent dose (measured in sieverts, Sv) is derived from the absorbed dose multiplied by the radiation weighting factor, which represents the effectiveness of the biological damage to the exposed tissue. Effective dose (measured in sieverts, Sv) is then derived by adding all equivalent doses multiplied by tissue weighting factors and provides a relative measure of the risk of stochastic effects that might result from irradiation. The most fundamental dose quantity, organ dose, of dental imaging can be obtained through two methods: measurement and computer simulation. First, organ doses can be physically measured with dosimeters placed within anatomy models, called physical human phantoms, that are exposed to dental radiation. Second, organ doses can be calculated through computer simulations where the simulation model of an imaging device is combined with digital anatomy models, called computational human phantoms [5]. Different types of pediatric and adult computational human phantoms are available for dose calculations. Many studies report organ doses from dental imaging procedures estimated by measurement or simulation. However, there are few resources that summarize a variety of data and present the radiation dose with a user-friendly interface.

The current study was intended to provide a practical resource for patients interested in understanding the radiation doses delivered by dental imaging procedures for the period of 2010–2020 and comparison with other radiation sources that are commonly faced in daily life. We established a comprehensive table of organ doses for dental imaging procedures by extracting data from literature and developed a user-friendly web application to present the summarized information.

2. Materials and Methods

We obtained articles from PubMed, published after 2010, on organ and effective doses delivered by dental imaging procedures including intraoral radiography, panoramic radiography, and CBCT, and summarized doses by dosimetry method, machine model, patient age, and technical parameters. Monte Carlo simulations of representative cases of the three dental imaging procedures were conducted to estimate and visualize the dose distribution within the head. Finally, we developed an interactive web-based dose calculator to provide easy access to the dental doses and to compare them with other radiation sources commonly faced in daily life.

2.1. Literature Search

We searched for articles on organ and effective doses delivered by dental imaging in PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information) available on October 1, 2020, using the following keywords:

  1. “dental intraoral organ dose” (for intraoral)

  2. “dental panoramic organ dose” (for panoramic)

  3. “dental cone beam CT organ dose” (for CBCT)

These keywords brought up 41, 49, and 54 papers (144 in total) for intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT procedures, respectively. We selected papers published after 2010:a total of 81 papers (14, 20, and 47 papers for intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT, respectively) out of 144 papers. The papers that were not written in English (except for non-English articles with dose tables in English) or did not include the dose to bone marrow, brain, salivary glands, and thyroid and effective doses were excluded from the review process. After the exclusion, we finally used 3, 9, and 11 papers providing organ and effective doses for intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT procedures, respectively.

2.2. Data Collection

The following data were extracted from the papers:

  1. Dosimetry methods: simulation or measurement

  2. Imaging machine model

  3. Age represented by physical (measurement) or computational (simulation) phantoms: we denoted the age of 35 as the minimum age for all adult phantoms, which is the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reference age of adults [6]

  4. Dose calculation program for simulation studies or dosimeter type for measurement studies

  5. Beam rotation angle (only for CBCT)

  6. Imaging protocol

  7. Dose area product (DAP) (mGy-cm2) (for intraoral and CBCT)

  8. Tube potential (kVp)

  9. The width and height of field of view (FOV) (cm) (for intraoral and CBCT)

  10. Effective dose (E) (μSv)

  11. Doses to the bone marrow, brain, salivary glands, and thyroid (μGy)

When a single paper provided multiple dose data in multiple categories, the dose in each category was considered a separate dose set. Simulation and measurement data were analyzed separately when both were reported in a single paper. When an effective dose was missing but organ doses were reported, an effective dose was derived from the organ doses using tissue weighting factors from ICRP Publication 103 [4]: 0.12 (bone marrow), 0.01 (brain), 0.01 (salivary glands), and 0.04 (thyroid). We assumed zero doses for other organs outside the head region in the calculation of the effective dose. The extracted data were tabulated in three detailed tables for intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT, respectively.

To efficiently analyze the doses, we averaged the organ and effective doses over different data sources. As for CBCT, which had more available data for different phantom ages and FOVthan intraoral and panoramic, we further arranged organ and effective doses by phantom age group (children and adults) and/or the area (height x width) of FOV (small <50 cm2, medium 50–150 cm2, and large >150 cm2).

2.3. Monte Carlo Simulation of Dental Imaging Procedures

We conducted Monte Carlo simulations of intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT imaging procedures by using a computational human head phantom and multimodal imaging-based detailed anatomical (MIDA) [7]combined with a Monte Carlo radiation transport code, MC-GPU [8]. The voxel resolution of the head phantom was 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 mm3. Key technical parameters for Monte Carlo simulations that were collected from literature are summarized in Table 1. In the case of panoramic imaging, a simplified image acquisition was modeled by concatenating 9,153 simulations with a 1-pixel-wide field of view of 10 × 0.05 cm2 instead of the realistic field of view of 10 × 0.2 cm2 since the image overlap in real machines could not be reliably simulated. Our simulations had two purposes: to evaluate the proportion of the dose distribution among different tissues during the three imaging modalities and to visualize dose distribution across the head anatomy in the web program.

Table 1.

Technical parameters for intraoral, panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography collected from literature, which were used for Monte Carlo simulations conducted using MC-GPU to estimate dose distribution within the head.

Parameters Intraoral Panoramic Cone-beam computed tomography
X-ray energy (kVp) 60 73 90
Filtration (mm Al) 3.5 2.5 2.8
FOV (cm2) 4 × 3 10 × 0.2 10 × 10
SRD1 (cm) 75 35 50
Rotation angle per view (degree) 02 240 360
Number of views per acquisition 1 9153 360
Number of X-rays per simulated view 1011 5 × 107 5 × 109
Total simulation time (min)3 33 143 760
Open in a new tab

1Source-to-rotation axis distance. 2The rectangular field was rotated 30° cranially. 3Simulation run in an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 GPU.

2.4. Development of a Web-Based Dose Calculator

After the summary dose tables were established, we developed a web-based dose calculation program to allow for convenient access to the organ and effective doses and comparison of the dental doses with doses from other radiation sources.

The web program was designed to allow an input from the user for the following parameters: type of imaging modalities, number of image sets, patient age group (child or adult), and size of imaging region, which is the area of the FOV (small <50 cm2, medium 50–150 cm2, and large >150 cm2). The last two parameters were only used for CBCT dose as the dose data for intraoral and panoramic imaging were not enough to be stratified by age and FOV. The user has the option of “I do not know” for the patient age group and FOV, in which case the average dose of the age groups and/or the size of FOV were presented.

Based on the input data from a user, the web application presents the following information:

  1. Dose delivered to the bone marrow, brain, salivary glands, and thyroid and effective dose; the doses are calculated by multiplying the dose per imaging by the number of image sets inputted by a user. Limited pediatric data points were available for intraoral and panoramic, andonly a total of 22 pediatric data points were extracted for CBCT. Since the data points were not enough to derive age dependency of dose for finer age resolution, we combined the 22 data points for CBCT into the pediatric age group. In the case of CBCT, when the user selects both age group and FOV, age and FOV dependent doses are displayed. FOV-averaged doses are displayed when a user selects “I do not know” for FOV. Age-averaged dose is displayed when a user selects “I do not know” for age.

  2. 2D and 3D dose distribution for the selected imaging procedures and the fraction of dose delivered to different tissues

  3. Comparison of the total effective dose (effective dose multiplied by the number of image sets) with that from other radiation sources: 37 μSv (London-to-New York flight), 100 μSv (chest X-ray) and 3110 μSv (annual natural background) [9]

The web dose calculator was developed using the commercial cross-platform language, Xojo (Xojo, Inc., Austin, TX). The Xojo development tool provides a graphical user interface-based programming environment to develop multiplatform apps for macOS, Windows, Linux, and Web. We used the web application platform to develop our web-based dose calculator. We created two versions of the web interface for web browsers on a personal computer and a smart phone to account for differences in screen size. The web application was deployed through Xojo Cloud hosting, which was connected to the domain name http://dentaldose.org. Figure 1 shows the workflow of the web program, where the user input data and output data are described.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of the web application for dental radiation dose calculations and dose display.

3. Results

We tabulated technical parameters and doses for a total of 4, 18, and 51 dose sets for intraoral (Table 2), panoramic (Table 3), and CBCT (Table 4) procedures, respectively.

Table 2.

Dosimetry method, machine model, phantom age, technical parameters, and effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses for intraoral imaging procedures. No simulation-based doses are reported.

Method Machine model Age Dosimeter Phantom Imaging protocols DAP (mGy × cm2) kVp FOV width (cm) FOV height (cm) Effective dose (uSv) Organ dose (uGy) Reference
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Measurement Gendex Oralix DC 35 TLD ART Bitewing single image   60 3.5 4.5 0.85 0.50 0.00 27.00 2.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Gendex Oralix DC 35 TLD ART Full-mouth single image   60 3.5 4.5 0.83 0.33 0.00 25.11 2.94 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Prostyle 10 Gafchromic film ATOM 706C Periapical lateral 7.42 66 4.5 5.5 0.60 1.20 0.30 5.50 0.00 Kadesjo et al. 2018 [11]
Measurement Prostyle 10 Gafchromic film ATOM 706C Periapical central 7.42 66 4.5 5.5 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Kadesjo et al. 2018 [11]
Measurement Focus 35 TLD CDP-R1 Maxillary premolar left   70 4.5 3.5 2.56 0.55 6.12 45.25 24.47 Li et al. 2020 [12]
Measurement Focus 35 TLD CDP-R1 Maxillary premolar left   70 4.5 3.5 2.39 1.19 7.76 33.88 18.38 Li et al. 2020 [12]
Open in a new tab

DAP, dose area product; FOV, field of view.

Table 3.

Dosimetry methods, machine model, phantom age, technical parameters, and effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses for panoramic imaging procedures.

Method Machine model Age (year) Dosimeter/MC code Phantom Imaging protocols kVp Effective dose (uSv) Organ dose (uGy) Reference
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Measurement AZ3000 35 TLD RANDO Temporomandibular 70 11.00 3.30 29.50 549.90 29.80 Matsuo et al. 2011 [13]
Measurement OP-200 35 TLD ART   66 10.73 9.94 10.03 311.78 27.89 Han et al. 2013 [14]
Measurement ORTHOPHOS CD 35 TLD ART   71 14.33 10.74 9.41 419.17 67.87 Han et al. 2013 [14]
Measurement ORTHOPHOS XG Plus 35 TLD ART   69 19.06 15.99 18.41 604.05 54.60 Han et al. 2013 [14]
Measurement ProMax 35 TLD ART   66 26.26 14.53 15.12 939.55 54.95 Han et al. 2013 [14]
Measurement Cranex Tome Ceph 35 TLD ART Jaw 66 19.00 11.00 26.00 1028.00 40.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Cranex Tome Ceph 35 TLD ART Dental 66 22.00 10.00 10.00 1182.00 48.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Veraviewepocs 35 TLD ART Jaw 66 23.00 13.00 10.00 869.00 53.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Veraviewepocs 35 TLD ART Dental 66 30.00 18.00 5.00 939.00 52.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Scanora 35 TLD ART Jaw 66 75.00 54.00 18.00 2887.00 126.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement Scanora 35 TLD ART Dental 66 49.00 38.00 19.00 2428.00 111.00 Granlund et al. 2015 [10]
Measurement OP-200 5 TLD ATOM 705 Long collimator P1 66 11.40 1.90 43.00 94.00 37.00 Davis 2015 [15]
Measurement OP-200 5 TLD ATOM 705 Short collimator P2 66 7.70 1.50 19.00 103.00 30.00 Davis et al. 2015 [15]
Measurement OP-100 35 TLD RANDO   73 7.15 5.00 72.00 109.00 24.00 Lee et al. 2016 [16]
Simulation OP-100 35 PCXMC ORNL   73 9.39 10.00 9.00 299.00 20.00 Lee et al. 2016 [16]
Measurement ProMax 2D 10 Gafchromic film ATOM 706C   62 4.10 1.80 0.00 160.00 17.00 Kadesjo et al. 2018 [11]
Measurement ORTHOPHOSXG/Cep 35 TLD RANDO   64 13.00 24.00 37.00 622.00 256.00 Qiang et al. 2019 [17]
Measurement OP-100 5 TLD ATOM 705-D   66 3.85 38.33 55.64 54.40 35.85 Lee et al. 2019 [18]
Simulation OP-100 5 PCXMC ORNL   66 3.47 10.51 20.00 4.32 13.29 Lee et al. 2019 [18]
Measurement PP1 35 TLD CDP-R1 Maxillofacial 73 8.15 8.08 33.10 113.30 54.31 Li et al. 2020 [12]
Measurement PP1 35 TLD CDP-R1 Maxillofacial 73 8.99 8.34 29.59 148.55 63.90 Li et al. 2020 [12]
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Dosimetry methods, machine model, phantom age, technical parameters, and effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses for cone-beam computed tomography procedures.

Method Machine model Age Dosimeter/MC code Phantom Rotation (degree) Imaging protocols DAP (mGy ×
cm2)		 kVp FOV width (cm) FOV height (cm) Effective dose (uSv) Organ dose (uGy) Reference
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Measurement Galileos 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   85 15 15 84.00 82.00 124.00 2104.00 380.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement i-CAT 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   120 16 13 83.00 116.00 375.00 1830.00 355.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Iluma Elite 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   120 21 14 368.00 660.00 3415.00 7225.00 1230.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Kodak 9500 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   90 20 18 136.00 206.00 1205.00 2676.00 585.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement NewTom VG 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   110 15 10 83.00 115.00 251.00 1690.00 354.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement NewTom VGi 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   110 15 15 194.00 186.00 605.00 2855.00 2045.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Scanora 3D 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   85 14.5 13.5 68.00 86.00 255.00 1568.00 296.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement SkyView 35 TLD ART   Maxillofacial   90 17 17 87.00 134.00 719.00 1582.00 474.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement 3D Accuitomo 170 35 TLD ART   Maxilla   90 10 5 54.00 112.00 189.00 2138.00 148.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement i-CAT NG 35 TLD ART   Mandible   120 16 6 45.00 33.00 46.00 973.00 251.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Kodak 9500 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   90 15 8 92.00 85.00 91.00 2166.00 541.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement NewTom VGi 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   110 12 8 265.00 294.00 431.00 6372.00 1293.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Picasso trio 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   85 12 7 123.00 126.00 134.00 2982.00 551.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Picasso trio 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   85 12 7 81.00 62.00 39.00 1837.00 583.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement ProMax 3D 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   84 8 8 122.00 88.00 53.00 2576.00 1021.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement ProMax 3D 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   84 8 8 28.00 27.00 28.00 596.00 202.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Scanora 3D 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   85 10 7.5 46.00 42.00 45.00 1285.00 148.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Scanora 3D 35 TLD ART   Mandible   85 10 7.5 47.00 34.00 25.00 1052.00 352.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Scanora 3D 35 TLD ART   Maxilla   85 10 7.5 45.00 37.00 31.00 1117.00 240.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Veraviewepocs 3D 35 TLD ART   Dentoalveolar   70 8 8 73.00 55.00 40.00 1956.00 330.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement 3D Accuitomo 170 35 TLD ART   Lower jaw, molar region   90 4 4 43.00 37.00 37.00 2120.00 195.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Kodak 9000 3D 35 TLD ART   Upper jaw, front region   70 5 3.7 19.00 21.00 18.00 523.00 30.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Kodak 9000 3D 35 TLD ART   Lower jaw, molar region   70 5 3.7 40.00 78.00 290.00 709.00 251.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement Pax-Uni3D 35 TLD ART   Upper jaw, front region   85 5 5 44.00 47.00 28.00 1073.00 209.00 Pauwels et al. 2012 [19]
Measurement ProMax 3D 35 MOSFET RANDO RAN102 200   574   8 8 153.00 25.00 4.30 32.00 32.00 Koivisto et al. 2012 [20]
Simulation ProMax 3D 35 PCXMC ORNL Phantom 200   574   8 8 131.00 6.90 2.80 41.00 8.40 Koivisto et al. 2012 [20]
Simulation i-CAT 35 EGS4 ICRP ADULT 360   556   16 13 66.00 50.00 590.00 1270.00 80.00 Morant et al. 2013 [21]
Simulation i-CAT 35 EGS4 ICRP ADULT 360   476   16 11 58.00 40.00 310.00 1230.00 80.00 Morant et al. 2013 [21]
Simulation i-CAT 35 EGS4 ICRP ADULT 360   415   16 10 53.00 30.00 190.00 1150.00 70.00 Morant et al. 2013 [21]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 5 EGSnrc In-house 360 Standard resolution   90 6 6 172.26 1052.00 89.00 2965.00 387.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 5 EGSnrc In-house 360 Standard resolution   90 8 8 297.97 1478.00 181.00 4204.00 1919.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 8 EGSnrc In-house 360 Standard resolution   90 6 6 119.35 518.00 92.00 2623.00 751.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 8 EGSnrc In-house 360 Standard resolution   90 8 8 228.32 986.00 181.00 3831.00 1747.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 12 EGSnrc In-house 360 Standard resolution   90 6 6 111.76 607.00 42.00 1862.00 497.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 12 EGSnrc In-house 360 Standard resolution   90 8 8 250.95 913.00 90.00 2961.00 2772.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 35 EGSnrc ICRP AF 360 Standard resolution   90 6 6 81.54 376.00 112.00 2830.00 175.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation Accuitomo 170 35 EGSnrc ICRP AF 360 Standard resolution   90 8 8 126.68 565.00 224.00 4308.00 339.00 Stratis et al. 2016 [22]
Simulation i-CAT 35 PCXMC ORNL Phantom 360     120 16 13 30.99 42.90 269.58 738.29 46.97 Yeh and Chen 2018 [23]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   Canine XS/ND   96 4.2 5.5 134.90 200.00 152.00 3558.00 214.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 4.2 5.5 155.90 222.00 170.00 4352.00 256.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 5 5.5 220.20 23.80 15.80 336.30 67.90 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 10 9 68.60 77.70 62.70 1400.60 315.30 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 10 5.5 55.70 45.00 28.60 1211.00 308.80 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 13 16 75.60 149.60 948.20 1453.60 206.60 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 5 EGSnrc In-house   S/ND   96 23 26 178.40 614.00 4324.00 1596.00 2677.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   Canine XS/ND   96 4.2 5.5 124.60 85.00 126.00 3080.00 157.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 4.2 5.5 128.60 93.00 141.00 3458.00 187.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 5 5.5 17.10 15.20 14.40 419.00 38.60 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 10 9 60.80 54.30 48.70 1389.00 290.90 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 10 5.5 47.90 31.70 219.00 1028.00 270.60 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   Molars XS/ND   96 13 16 64.70 104.70 772.20 1319.00 202.60 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 8 EGSnrc In-house   S/ND   96 23 26 392.20 518.00 4247.00 4007.00 2908.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation ProMax 3D 35 EGSnrc ICRP AM       96 23 26 256.10 362.80 4653.00 4378.00 294.00 Marcu et al. 2018 [24]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 180 Maxillary first molar/SR 168 90 5 5 40.00 375.00 105.00 1154.00 139.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 180 Mandibular dental arch/SR 280 90 6.1 7.8 75.00 370.00 55.00 1278.00 1252.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 180 Both dental arches 338 90 7.8 7.8 74.00 578.00 1155.00 2045.00 535.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 180 Mandible/SR 528 90 7.8 15 142.00 564.00 96.00 2275.00 2465.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 180 Viscerocranium/SR 755 90 13 15 170.00 1034.00 552.00 2847.00 2370.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 360 Maxillary first molar/SR 168 90 5 5 37.00 335.00 78.00 592.00 104.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 360 Mandibular dental arch/SR 280 90 6.1 7.8 105.00 400.00 49.00 1161.00 789.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 360 Both dental arches 338 90 7.8 7.8 92.00 621.00 153.00 1559.00 789.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 360 Mandible/SR 528 90 7.8 15 184.00 607.00 87.00 2035.00 3533.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Simulation Cranex3Dx 35 MCNP6.1 ZUBAL Head 360 Viscerocranium/SR 755 90 13 15 214.00 1005.00 523.00 2371.00 3384.00 Kralik et al. 2018 [25]
Measurement ProMax 3D 10 TLD ATOM 706C 360   510 90 4 5 88.00 130.00 510.00 1800.00 200.00 Kadesjo et al. 2018 [11]
Measurement NewTom5G 10 TLD ATOM 706C 360   1080 110 6 6 172.00 270.00 760.00 3800.00 340.00 Kadesjo et al. 2018 [11]
Measurement Galileos 35 TLD RANDO   Maxillofacial   85 15 15 203.00 278.00 636.00 7775.00 8727.00 Qiang et al. 2019 [17]
Simulation CS9300 35 PCXMC ORNL Phantom 360 Facial 251 90 17 13.5 160.90 180.00 460.00 4570.00 450.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Simulation CS9300 35 PCXMC ORNL Phantom 360 Dual jaw 91 90 10 10 94.40 100.00 230.00 1950.00 580.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Simulation RAYSCAN 35 PCXMC ORNL Phantom 360 Large jaw 177 80 16 10 198.00 200.00 220.00 5360.00 320.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Simulation RAYSCAN 35 PCXMC ORNL Phantom 360 Jaw 91 80 10 10 195.20 190.00 280.00 4700.00 410.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Measurement CS9300 35 OSLD ATOM 702C 360 Facial 251 90 17 13.5 181.40 20.00 1020.00 3160.00 1210.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Measurement CS9300 35 OSLD ATOM 702C 360 Dual jaw 91 90 10 10 90.70 10.00 230.00 1950.00 580.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Measurement RAYSCAN 35 OSLD ATOM 702C 360 Large jaw 177 80 16 10 228.50 10.00 380.00 4540.00 1680.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Measurement RAYSCAN 35 OSLD ATOM 702C 360 Jaw 91 80 10 10 213.80 10.00 570.00 3930.00 1500.00 Lee et al. 2020 [26]
Measurement KaVo 3D eXami 35 TLD CDP-R1   Maxillofacial   120 14.5 8.5 56.63 15.22 427.82 1177.24 476.04 Li et al. RPD 2020 [12]
Measurement KaVo 3D eXami 35 TLD CDP-R1   Maxillofacial   120 14.5 8.5 55.18 11.63 494.50 1314.85 452.68 Li et al. RPD 2020 [12]
Open in a new tab

DAP, dose area product; FOV, field of view.

3.1. Technical Parameters and Methods Used in Dosimetry Studies

About 56% (n = 57) of the dose sets were from measurements, and the remaining 44% (n = 44) were from simulation studies. In the measurement studies, different types of dosimeters were used: the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) (86%), the optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) (7%), the Gafchromic film (5%), and the metal-oxide-silicon field-effect transistor (MOSFET) (2%). The physical head phantoms used for measurements included the Alderson Radiation Therapy (ART) phantom (Radiology Support Devices Inc., Long Beach, CA) (70%), the ATOM adult and child phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, VA) (20%), and CDP-R1 (Chengdu Fangtuo Simulation Technology Company Limited, China) (10%). In the simulation studies, the EGS program [27] produced about 60% of all dose sets followed by MCNP [28] (22%) and PCXMC [29] (STUK, Helsinki, Finland) (18%). A variety of computational head phantoms were used for the simulation studies: in-house head phantoms developed from patient CT images (44%), the Zubal head phantom [30] (22%), the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)-stylized phantoms (18%), and the ICRP adult phantoms [31] (16%). The tube potential for intraoral imaging ranged from 60 to 70 kVp. The panoramic and CBCT scans used 62–73 kVp and 70–120 kVp, respectively. In the case of CBCT, the width and height of the FOV ranged from about 4 to 26 cm and the area (width × height) ranged from about 15 [11] to 600 [24] cm2. The beam rotation angle for CBCT was between 180° and 360°. The DAP for CBCT ranged from 91 to 1080 mGy-cm2.

3.2. Organ and Effective Doses

The organ and effective doses reported in the literature are summarized in Table 5. Mean effective doses delivered by intraoral, 1.32 (0.60–2.56) μSv, and panoramic, 17.93 (3.47–75.00) μSv, procedures are about 1% and 15% of that delivered by CBCT, 121.09 (17.10–392.20) μSv. Among the three imaging modalities, the salivary glands received the greatest dose: 22.79 μGy (intraoral), 660.24 μGy (panoramic), and 2333.95 μGy (CBCT). Among the four organs of interest, the smallest dose was delivered to the bone marrow, except for intraoral where the brain received the smallest dose.

Table 5.

Minimum, mean, and maximum values of effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses from intraoral, panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography procedures reported in the selected publications.

Procedures Effective dose (μSv) Organ dose (μGy)
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Intraoral (n = 6) Mean 1.32 0.63 2.36 22.79 7.97
Min 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Max 2.56 1.20 7.76 45.25 24.47
Panoramic (n = 21) Mean 17.93 14.66 23.28 660.24 57.93
Min 3.47 1.50 0.00 4.32 13.29
Max 75.00 54.00 72.00 2887.00 256.00
Cone-beam computed tomography (n = 76) Mean 121.09 254.78 471.65 2333.95 811.16
Min 17.10 6.90 2.80 32.00 8.40
Max 392.20 1478.00 4653.00 7775.00 8727.00
Open in a new tab

In CBCT imaging, the child phantoms tended to receive greater doses compared with the adult phantoms, except for the salivary glands and thyroid doses (Table 6). The child phantoms received about 29% greater effective dose than the adult phantoms. The bone marrow dose of the child phantoms was about 80% greater than that of the adult phantom.

Table 6.

Minimum, mean, and maximum values of effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses from cone-beam computed tomography procedures by age group (children and adults) reported in the selected publications.

Age group Effective dose (μSv) Organ dose (μGy)
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Children (n = 22) Mean 143.9 372.2 600.7 2393.3 759.7
Min 17.1 15.2 14.4 336.3 38.6
Max 392.2 1478.0 4324.0 4352.0 2908.0
Adults (n = 54) Mean 111.8 207.0 419.1 2309.7 832.1
Min 19.0 6.9 2.8 32.0 8.4
Max 368.0 1034.0 4653.0 7775.0 8727.0
Open in a new tab

The effective dose for the larger FOV in CBCT is greater than that for the smaller FOV (Table 7). The effective dose for the large FOV (greater than 150 cm2) is about 1.6 times greater than that for the small FOV (less than 50 cm2). The brain dose for the large FOV is about eight times greater than that for the small FOV.

Table 7.

Minimum, mean, and maximum values of effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses from cone-beam computed tomography procedures by field-of-view area (FOV width × height, cm2) reported in the selected publications.

FOV area (cm2) Effective dose (μSv) Organ dose (μGy)
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Small (<50) (n = 20) Mean 96.5 262.8 144.2 1984.7 312.0
Min 17.1 15.2 14.4 336.3 38.6
Max 220.2 1052.0 760.0 4352.0 1252.0
Medium (50–150) (n = 32) Mean 113.7 246.4 184.9 2137.2 780.7
Min 28.0 6.9 2.8 32.0 8.4
Max 298.0 1478.0 1155.0 4700.0 3533.0
Large (>150) (n = 24) Mean 151.4 259.3 1126.8 2887.3 1267.7
Min 31.0 10.0 124.0 738.3 47.0
Max 392.2 1034.0 4653.0 7775.0 8727.0
Open in a new tab

Table 8 shows the age- and FOV size-dependent organ and effective doses. A similar trend by age group shown in Table 6 (child's dose is greater than adult's dose) and by FOV size shown in Table 7 (large FOV gives greater dose than small FOV) is also observed.

Table 8.

Minimum, mean, and maximum values of effective and organ (bone marrow, brain, salivary gland, and thyroid) doses from cone-beam computed tomography procedures by age group (children and adults) and field-of-view area (FOV width × height, cm2) reported in the selected publications.

FOV area (cm2) age group Effective dose (μSv) Organ dose (μGy)
Bone marrow Brain Salivary gland Thyroid
Small (<50) Children (n = 11) Mean 131.3 292.4 192.0 2568.5 281.4
Min 17.1 15.2 14.4 336.3 38.6
Max 220.2 1052.0 760.0 4352.0 751.0
Adults (n = 9) Mean 53.8 226.6 85.8 1271.1 349.3
Min 19.0 21.0 18.0 523.0 30.0
Max 105.0 400.0 290.0 2830.0 1252.0
Medium (50–150) Children (n = 7) Mean 144.3 512.2 115.9 2289.2 1089.1
Min 47.9 31.7 28.6 1028.0 270.6
Max 298.0 1478.0 219.0 4204.0 2772.0
Adults (n = 25) Mean 105.2 172.0 204.3 2094.7 694.4
Min 28.0 6.9 2.8 32.0 8.4
Max 265.0 621.0 1155.0 6372.0 3533.0
Large (>150) Children (n = 4) Mean 177.7 346.6 2572.9 2093.9 1498.6
Min 64.7 104.7 772.2 1319.0 202.6
Max 392.2 614.0 4324.0 4007.0 2908.0
Adults (n = 20) Mean 146.1 241.9 837.6 3046.0 1221.5
Min 31.0 10.0 124.0 738.3 47.0
Max 368.0 1034.0 4653.0 7775.0 8727.0
Open in a new tab

3.3. Monte Carlo Dose Distribution

2D dose distribution at the level of the center of the lower teeth for intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT calculated by MC-GPU simulations are presented in Figure 2. The angles of radiation incidence to the head phantom used in the simulations (Table 1) are visible on the head anatomy: 30° from the patient's front for intraoral; 240° rotation behind the patient's head for panoramic; and 360° rotation for CBCT. Movie clips presenting a rotating 3D dose distribution for panoramic and CBCT were created and included in the web dose calculator.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Dose distribution at the level of the lower teeth generated by MC-GPU simulations for (a) intraoral radiography, (b) panoramic radiography, and (c) cone-beam computed tomography.

The fraction of dose in different tissues (brain, muscle, bone, skin, soft tissue, cerebrospinal, blood, and eye lens) out of the total dose for intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT is shown in Figure 3. A larger portion of the radiation dose is delivered to the bone (55%) in intraoral imaging compared with panoramic and CBCT, each of which contributes about 35% of the total radiation dose to the bone. The dose delivered to the brain is nearly zero in intraoral but slightly increased to 1% in panoramic and 2% in CBCT. The dose delivered to skin and soft tissue remarkably increases from 12% (soft tissue) and 10% (skin) in intraoral to 26% (soft tissue) and 12% (skin) in panoramic and 22% (soft tissue) and 11% (skin) in CBCT.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Percent fraction of radiation dose for the different tissues in the head derived from the MC-GPU simulation of the human head phantom exposed to (a) intraoral radiography, (b) panoramic radiography, and (c) cone-beam computed tomography.

3.4. Web Dose Calculator

A user-friendly interactive web program was developed for a user to input the following: the type of imaging procedure, the number of image sets, age group, and FOV size (Figure 4(a)). The web interface displays organ and effective doses (Figure 4(b)), dose fraction in tissues and 2D and 3D dose distributions in the head (Figure 4(c)), and dose comparison with other radiation sources (Figure 4(d)).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Web interfaces for (a) user input, (b) organ (brain, salivary gland, bone marrow, thyroid) and effective doses, (c) the fraction of dose in different tissues and 2D and 3D dose distributions, and (d) dose comparison with other radiation sources.

4. Discussion

Dental imaging is one of the most common radiological imaging procedures. Although the dose level is known to be relatively low, it is still important to monitor the trend of dental dose in different dental imaging modalities. We evaluated the radiation dose received from dental imaging practices by extracting data from literature published after 2010. To efficiently present the results of the study, an interactive web-based dose calculator was created.

We compared our results from intraoral imaging with those published by Fontana et al. [32], which report the dose to the brain, salivary gland, and thyroid delivered by imaging conducted from 1940 to 2009, with the increment of ten years. To simplify the comparison, we averaged their doses in three time periods: 1940–1969, 1970–1989, and 1990–2009. The period 2010–2020 adopted in our study follows the end of their study period. A clear dose reduction was observed in the brain dose by period. Compared with the organ doses reported for the earliest period (1940–1969), the doses to the brain, salivary gland, and thyroid resulted from our study were smaller by 77%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Compared with the latest period, 1990–2009, in Fontana et al., our organ doses were smaller by 7%, 64%, and 62% for the brain, salivary gland, and thyroid, respectively. The dose reduction may be due to the change in technical parameters and the improvement in imaging quality with the same amount of radiation.

The average effective dose from CBCT, delivering the greatest dose compared with intraoral and panoramic, was more than 92 times greater than that from intraoral and seven times greater than that from panoramic (Table 4). However, the maximum CBCT effective dose, with a large FOV, for children, 392.2 μSv [5], is about 13% of the dose from the natural radiation that a person receives on average every year, 3110 μSv [9], disregarding the radiation received from occupations and medical procedures.

We are aware of the following limitations in the current study. First, without dose calibration using measurements from clinical machines, absolute doses could not be estimated with our Monte Carlo simulations, so only relative dose distributions were obtained and analyzed. Future work may involve accurate dose measurements to provide absolute doses for a comprehensive library of technical parameters for panoramic and CBCT procedures. Second, we found that pediatric dose data were relatively limited in literature compared with those of adults, so we grouped age-dependent dose data into pediatric (age <20) and adult (age ≥ 20) for CBCT only,for which a total of 22 pediatric data points were available. Since a clear age dependency for those limited data points was not observed, possibly due to large variability, we categorized the pediatric ages into a single group. Considering the higher potential risk in pediatric patients, due to increased radiosensitivity and longer expected life span after the irradiation event, it is important to more accurately evaluate the doses delivered to them once additional dose data are available in the future. Lastly, our literature search was limited to one bibliographic database, PubMed, to the keywords we defined, and to the papers written in English.

5. Conclusion

A comprehensive table of the organ and effectives doses delivered by intraoral, panoramic, and CBCT dental imaging procedures was established from previously published articles collected from PubMed. We found that organ and effective doses from intraoral and panoramic radiography are substantially smaller than those from CBCT, and the maximum CBCT effective dose is about 13% of the dose from annual natural radiation. Our dose summary should be useful for comparison among doses from different dental imaging methods as well as comparison with doses from other radiation sources. The user-friendly, interactive web application (http://dentaldose.org) allows for receiving user input and displaying doses, dose distribution maps, and dose comparison with other radiation sources.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the 2020 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Fellowship Program at the US Food and Drug Administration.

Data Availability

The radiation dose data from dental imaging procedures used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Özalp Ö, Tezerişener H. A., Kocabalkan B., et al. Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: a retrospective study. Imaging Science in Dentistry . 2018;48:269–275. doi: 10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stratis A., Zhang G., Jacobs R., Bogaerts R., Bosmans H. The growing concern of radiation dose in paediatric dental and maxillofacial CBCT: an easy guide for daily practice. European Radiology . 2019;29(12):7009–7018. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06287-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E., Ekholm M., Haukka J., Evälahti M., Waltimo-Sirén J. Are children’s dental panoramic tomographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs sufficiently optimized? The European Journal of Orthodontics . 2016;38(1):103–110. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection . Ann, ICRP 37: ICRP Publication 103; 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Xu X. G. An exponential growth of computational phantom research in radiation protection, imaging, and radiotherapy: a review of the fifty-year history. Physics in Medicine and Biology . 2014;59(18):R233–R302. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/18/r233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.ICRP. Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection Reference Values . Ann, ICRP 32: ICRP Publication 89; 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Iacono M. I., Neufeld E., Akinnagbe E., et al. MIDA: a multimodal imaging-based detailed anatomical model of the human head and neck. PLoS One . 2015;10(4):p. e0124126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Badal A., Badano A. Accelerating Monte Carlo simulations of photon transport in a voxelized geometry using a massively parallel graphics processing unit. Medical Physics . 2009;36(11):4878–4880. doi: 10.1118/1.3231824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ionizing N. C. RP. Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States . Bethesda, MD, USA: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Granlund C., Thilander-Klang A., Ylhan B., Lofthag-Hansen S., Ekestubbe A. Absorbed organ and effective doses from digital intra-oral and panoramic radiography applying the ICRP 103 recommendations for effective dose estimations. The British Journal of Radiology . 2016;89(1066):p. 20151052. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20151052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kadesjö N., Lynds R., Nilsson M., Shi X. Q. Radiation dose from X-ray examinations of impacted canines: cone beam CT vs two-dimensional imaging. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology . 2018;47:p. 20170305. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20170305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li Y., Huang B., Cao J., et al. Estimating radiation dose to major organs IN dental X-ray examinations: a phantom study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry . 2020;192(3):328–334. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Matsuo A., Okano T., Gotoh K., et al. The absorbed dose and the effective dose of panoramic temporo mandibular joint radiography. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology . 2011;67(10):1275–1283. doi: 10.6009/jjrt.67.1275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Han G.-S., Cheng J.-G., Li G., Ma X.-C. Shielding effect of thyroid collar for digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology . 2013;42(9):p. 20130265. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20130265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Davis A. T., Safi H., Maddison S. M. The reduction of dose in paediatric panoramic radiography: the impact of collimator height and programme selection. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology . 2015;44(2):p. 20140223. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lee C., Lee S.-S., Kim J.-E., et al. Comparison of dosimetry methods for panoramic radiography: thermoluminescent dosimeter measurement versus personal computer-based Monte Carlo method calculation. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology . 2016;121(3):322–329. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2015.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Qiang W., Qiang F., Lin L. Estimation of effective dose OF dental X-ray devices. Radiation Protection Dosimetry . 2019;183:417–421. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncy159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee C., Park B., Lee S.-S., et al. Efficacy of the Monte Carlo method and dose reduction strategies in paediatric panoramic radiography. Scientific Reports . 2019;9(1):p. 9691. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46157-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pauwels R., Beinsberger J., Collaert B., et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. European Journal of Radiology . 2012;81(2):267–271. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Koivisto J., Kiljunen T., Tapiovaara M., Wolff J., Kortesniemi M. 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 Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology . 2012;114(3):393–400. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Morant J., Salvadó M., Hernández-Girón I., Casanovas R., Ortega R., Calzado A. Dosimetry of a cone beam CT device for oral and maxillofacial radiology using Monte Carlo techniques and ICRP adult reference computational phantoms. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology . 2013;42(3):p. 92555893. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/92555893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Stratis A., Zhang G., Jacobs R., Bogaerts R., Bosmans H. Rotating and translating anthropomorphic head voxel models to establish an horizontal Frankfort plane for dental CBCT Monte Carlo simulations: a dose comparison study. Physics in Medicine and Biology . 2016;61(24):N681–N696. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/61/24/n681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yeh J.-K., Chen C.-H. Estimated radiation risk of cancer from dental cone-beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics patients. BMC Oral Health . 2018;18(1):p. 131. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0592-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marcu M., Hedesiu M., Salmon B., et al. Estimation of the radiation dose for pediatric CBCT indications: a prospective study on ProMax3D. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry . 2018;28(3):300–309. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kralik I., Faj D., Lauc T., Škarica M., Popić J., Brkic H. Dose area product in estimation of effective dose of the patients undergoing dental cone beam computed tomography examinations. Journal of Radiological Protection . 2018;38(4):1412–1427. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/aae4e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.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):p. e0219103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kawrakow I., Rogers D. W. O. The EGSnrc Code System: Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport . Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council of Canada; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Briesmeister J. F. MCNP - A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code . Los Alamos, NM, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tapiovaara M., Lakkisto M., Servomaa A. PCXMC-A PC-Based Monte Carlo Program for Calculating Patient Doses in Medical X-Ray Examinations . 2nd. Helsinki, Finland: Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK); 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zubal I. G., Harrell C. R., Smith E. O., Rattner Z., Gindi G., Hoffer P. B. Computerized three-dimensional segmented human anatomy. Medical Physics . 1994;21(2):299–302. doi: 10.1118/1.597290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.ICRP. ICRP 39, 2: ICRP Publication; 2009. Adult reference computational phantoms. ICRP publication 110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fontana R. C., Pasqual E., Miller D. L., Simon S. L., Cardis E., Thierry-Chef I. Trends in estimated thyroid, salivary gland, brain, and eye lens doses from intraoral dental radiography over seven decades (1940 TO 2009) Health Physics . 2020;118(2):136–148. doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The radiation dose data from dental imaging procedures used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Articles from Radiology Research and Practice are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES