Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct 1;9(5):525-532.
doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.466. eCollection 2019 Oct.

Dosimetry of Occupational Radiation around Panoramic X-ray Apparatus

Pakravan A H  1 , Aghamiri S M R  2 , Bamdadian T  3 , Gholami M  4   5 , Moshfeghi M  6
Affiliations

Dosimetry of Occupational Radiation around Panoramic X-ray Apparatus

Pakravan A H et al. J Biomed Phys Eng. .

Abstract

Background: Panoramic imaging is one of the most common imaging methods in dentistry. Regarding the side-effects of ionizing radiation, it is necessary to survey different aspects and details of panoramic imaging. In this study, we compared the absorbed x-ray dose around two panoramic x-ray units: PM 2002 CC Proline (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) and Cranex Tome (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland).

Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study, 15 thermoluminescet dosemeters (TLD-100) were placed in 3 semi-circles of 40cm, 80cm and 120cm radii in order to estimate x-ray dose. Around each unit, the number of TLDs in each semi-circle was 5 with equal intervals. The center of semicircles accords with the patient's position. Each TLD was exposed 40 times. These dosemeters were read out with a Harshaw Model 4000 TLD Reader (USA). The calibration processing and the reading of dosemeters were performed by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

Results: The mean absorbed dose in three lines of PM 2002 CC Proline was 123.2±15.1, 118.0±11.0 and 108.0±9.1 µSv, (p=0.013). The results were 140.4±15.2, 120.2±10.4 and 111.6±11.2 µSv in Cranex Tome (p=0.208), which reveals no significant difference between two systems.

Conclusion: There are no significant differences between the mean absorbed dose of surveyed models in panoramic imaging by two units (PM 2002 CC Proline and Cranex Tome). These results were less than occupational exposure recommended by ICRP, even at the highest calculated doses.

Keywords: Occupational Exposure; Radiation Dosage; Radiography, Panoramic; X-Rays.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lurie G A. Panoramic imaging. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. Louis: Mosby; 2004. p. 191.
    1. Piedra I. The Levandoski Panoramic Analysis in the diagnosis of facial and dental asymmetries. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1995;20:15–21. - PubMed
    1. Mattila M, Kononen M, Mattila K. Vertical asymmetry of the mandibular ramus and condylar heights measured with a new method from dental panoramic radiographs in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Oral Rehabil. 1995;22:741–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb00217.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Osman F, Scully C, Dowell T B, Davies R M. Use of panoramic radiographs in general dental practice in England. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986;14:8–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01484.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rushton V E, Horner K, Worthington H V. Aspects of panoramic radiography in general dental practice. Br Dent J. 1999;186:342–4. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources