Raheis Rajalingam, Karen Brage, Louise Kjærby Nielsen, Freja Bøgh Eriksen, Helene Hviid Jørgensen, Anne Sofie Mikkelsen, Gitte Schøler, Nejc Mekiš, Maja Bruvo, Helle Precht
{"title":"Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric bitewing imaging.","authors":"Raheis Rajalingam, Karen Brage, Louise Kjærby Nielsen, Freja Bøgh Eriksen, Helene Hviid Jørgensen, Anne Sofie Mikkelsen, Gitte Schøler, Nejc Mekiš, Maja Bruvo, Helle Precht","doi":"10.1093/rpd/ncae227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bitewing examinations are used to examine the pediatric dental status. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose between two different X-ray systems used for pediatric bitewing imaging.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Data were obtained from both pediatric in vivo bitewing studies and phantom studies. Two X-ray systems were used: Trophy CCX digital (TCCX) (Trophy Irix 70, Marne-la-Vallee, France) and Planmeca Pro X (PPX) (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). An Unfors dosimeter (Unfors EDD-30, Billdal, Sweden) was used to measure the skin dose. Image quality was evaluated blindly by three experienced dentists using a Likert scale of 1-5 based on the visual representation of the anatomical structures with emphasis on caries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest scoring in vivo bitewing images were obtained with TCCX, but the skin dose was 36% higher (mean 3029 ± 613 μGy) and 113% higher (mean 1364 ± 276 μGy) with standard settings than with compared to PPX. The evaluation of image quality revealed a higher median value for all ratings of TCCX compared to PPX for both the patient and phantom studies, meaning that the images of TCCX were rated as higher quality than the images from PPX. No correlation was found between the median score and the skin dose or between the median score and the exposure times.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant difference in radiation dose and image quality was found between TCCX and PPX in bitewing imaging. TCCX generally produced higher doses and better graded images, although all images were suitable for diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":20795,"journal":{"name":"Radiation protection dosimetry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation protection dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncae227","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Bitewing examinations are used to examine the pediatric dental status. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose between two different X-ray systems used for pediatric bitewing imaging.
Materials and methods: Data were obtained from both pediatric in vivo bitewing studies and phantom studies. Two X-ray systems were used: Trophy CCX digital (TCCX) (Trophy Irix 70, Marne-la-Vallee, France) and Planmeca Pro X (PPX) (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). An Unfors dosimeter (Unfors EDD-30, Billdal, Sweden) was used to measure the skin dose. Image quality was evaluated blindly by three experienced dentists using a Likert scale of 1-5 based on the visual representation of the anatomical structures with emphasis on caries.
Results: The highest scoring in vivo bitewing images were obtained with TCCX, but the skin dose was 36% higher (mean 3029 ± 613 μGy) and 113% higher (mean 1364 ± 276 μGy) with standard settings than with compared to PPX. The evaluation of image quality revealed a higher median value for all ratings of TCCX compared to PPX for both the patient and phantom studies, meaning that the images of TCCX were rated as higher quality than the images from PPX. No correlation was found between the median score and the skin dose or between the median score and the exposure times.
Conclusion: A significant difference in radiation dose and image quality was found between TCCX and PPX in bitewing imaging. TCCX generally produced higher doses and better graded images, although all images were suitable for diagnosis.
期刊介绍：
Radiation Protection Dosimetry covers all aspects of personal and environmental dosimetry and monitoring, for both ionising and non-ionising radiations. This includes biological aspects, physical concepts, biophysical dosimetry, external and internal personal dosimetry and monitoring, environmental and workplace monitoring, accident dosimetry, and dosimetry related to the protection of patients. Particular emphasis is placed on papers covering the fundamentals of dosimetry; units, radiation quantities and conversion factors. Papers covering archaeological dating are included only if the fundamental measurement method or technique, such as thermoluminescence, has direct application to personal dosimetry measurements. Papers covering the dosimetric aspects of radon or other naturally occurring radioactive materials and low level radiation are included. Animal experiments and ecological sample measurements are not included unless there is a significant relevant content reason.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
