) CBCT. . CRANEX 3D ( (CBCT) Cone beam computed tomography . : (CBVT) Cone beam volumetric tomography.

Transcription

1 1395/3/27 : 1395/5/12 : 1395 /01 / CRANEX 3D () Cone Beam Computed Tomography () Cone beam computed tomography : ).. CRANEX 3D ( 2 (TLD) Thermoluminescence dosimeter 5 :.. 0/283 ± 0/053 0/020 ± 0/002 : ( /650 ± 0/7). 0/270 ± 0/051 0/027 ± 0/002 0/022 ± 0/003. ( 0/311 ± 0/00). /10 ± 0/70 0/389 ± 0/051 0/330 ± 0/050.(P < ) ) ( ) :. ( 10 Thermoluminescence dosimeter Cone beam computed tomography :. :.CRANEX 3D () Cone Beam Computed Tomography :(01) (Projection).(1 ). ( ) () Cone beam computed tomography (CBVT) Cone beam volumetric tomography ( ) rasha.kh66@yahoo.com : /01 / 3

2 (EICRP60) Ludlow 36/3 NewTom 3/5 1. ( 3600) 6/2.(15) 15 0/17 Ludlow. 193 icat NewTom CB MercuRay. ( 13/3) CT 223.(17) MSCT Loubele (Multi slice computed tomography).. MSCT MSCT 1382 Accuitomo (18) icat Suomalainen. MSCT MSCT 2767.(19) Highend CT scan Kyriakou ( ) Guldner (20).(21) 25 6 CT scan PA Waters (SMV) Submentovertex view.(1).(2) (Windowing).(37). ( ).(813).(15) (FOV) Field of view ). (kvp peak kilovoltage.(16) () Cone beam computed tomography.1 (1) (CT) Computed tomography 1395 /01 /

3 .. (TLD) Thermo luminescencedosimeter (23) (2) )/( ) = (2) ( 6.( 2/5 2 1/5 1 0/5) 60.. (3) / = /1 =. (3) TLD 5 2 TLD.. TLD. 60 SOLARO 2A. NE TECHNOLOGY () ) = (. () Theodorakou (22). FOV. CRANEX 3D 16/.. 12/6 90 kvp Peak kilovoltage kvp... : (1) n= (1) CRANEX 3D. GR 200 SOLARO 2A. GR 200 ( ) P Cu Mg /01 / 3

4 .1 P ( ) ± 0/38 0/52 ± 0/08 0/08 0/16 ± 0/02 0/01 0/02 ± 0/00 0/35 0/5 ± 0/07 0/05 0/1 ± 0/01 0/02 0/02 ± 0/00 /00 8/10 ± 0/89 0/25 0/58 ± 0/06 0/31 0/28 ± 0/05 3/ 7/30 ± 0/82 0/30 0/51 ± 0/07 0/28 0/26 ± 0/05 0/07 0/1 ± 0/01 0/26 0/6 ± 0/06 0/01 0/02 ± 0/00 : Cone beam computed tomography ). 1 ( CRANEX 3D 0/020 0/283 ± 0/002 ± 0/053 CRANEX 3D. ( /650 ± 0/7). ( 0/311 ± 0/00) 0/022 ± 0/002 0/270 /10 ± 0/051 0/027 ± 0/002 ± 0/70 0/389 ± 0/051 0/330 ± 0/ (FOV). (6 8 ) FOV.. FOV Scout. TLD ( 18 21) /01 / 3 115

5 .(2) kvp 8/8 6/2 6/5 kvp 90. 1/3 ( )..(P < ). /5. /00 1/08 15/20 FOV.(25) (ICRP 2008) 2/ (Chin rest). CRANEX 3D ( /650 ± 0/7). ( 0/311 ± 0/00) ANOVA.(P < ) kvp ( ) 0/02 0/ 0/07 0/17 1/1 ( )0/2 0/20 0/22 0/22 0/12 1/50 0/09 0/9 0/20 6/50 3/30 0/002 0/038 1/00 0/008 0/005 0/003 0/011 0/00 0/23 0/009 0/0 0/ /002 0/033 0/002 0/056 1/620 0/027 0/005 0/007 0/010 0/003 0/060 0/006 0/017 0/016 0/270 0/120 : Cone beam computed tomography; (s) 16/ 12/6 1/1 18/0 10/0 6 17/5 17/5 3 FOV (cm) /5 8 pan ma 6/ / kvp CRANEX 3D CRANEX 3D Orthophos NewTom CB Mercuray Veraview Accuitomo Promax 3D (planmeca) Accuitomo CCD Accuitomo FP Scanora 3D (Soredex) Accuitomo Ludlow Ludlow Hirsch Suomalainen Guldner /01 / 3

6 ... 0/027 ± 0/002 0/022 ± 0/002 0/330 ± 0/050 0/270 ± 0/051. /10 ± 0/70 0/389 ± 0/051.(26) References 1. Makhija G, Makhija P. Integrating cone beam computed tomography () in dentistryreview. Bhavnagar University's Journal of Dentistry 2013; 1(3): Broadbent BH. A new Xray technique and its application to orthodontia. The Angle Orthodontist 1931; 1(2): Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol 1973; 6(552): Cavalcanti MG, Vannier MW. Quantitative analysis of spiral computed tomography for craniofacial clinical applications. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27(6): Kragskov J, Bosch C, Gyldensted C, SindetPedersen S. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and threedimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997; 3(2): Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Proffit WR. Working with DICOM craniofacial images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136(3): Chidiac JJ, Shofer FS, AlKutoub A, Laster LL, Ghafari J. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2002; 5(2): Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Threedimensional cephalometry: spiral multislice vs conebeam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130(3): Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Stateoftheart on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10(1): Hamada Y, Kondoh T, Noguchi K, Iino M, Isono H, Ishii H, et al. Application of limited cone beam computed tomography to clinical assessment of alveolar bone grafting: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 2(2): LofthagHansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Limited conebeam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103(1): Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol 2006; 77(7): Honda K, Larheim TA, Maruhashi K, Matsumoto K, Iwai K. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on an autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35(3): Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30(6): Ludlow JB, DaviesLudlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32(): Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent 2009; 2009: Ludlow JB, DaviesLudlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and icat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35(): Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71(3): Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38(6): Kyriakou Y, Kolditz D, Langner O, Krause J, Kalender W. Digital volume tomography (DVT) and multislice spiral CT (MSCT): an objective examination of dose and image quality. Rofo 2011; 183(2): 153. [In German] /01 /

7 21. Guldner C, Ningo A, Voigt J, Diogo I, Heinrichs J, Weber R, et al. Potential of dosage reduction in conebeamcomputed tomography () for radiological diagnostics of the paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270(): Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, Pauwels R, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1010): Power M. Solar 2A operator s manual. Berkshire, UK: Ne technology limited; p Sun Z, Ng KH. Multislice CT angiography in cardiac imaging. Part III: radiation risk and dose reduction. Singapore Med J 2010; 51(5): Wrixon AD. New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot 2008; 28(2): White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 6 th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby/Elsevier; p /01 / 3

8 : CRANEX 3D CRANEX 3D (Procedure) 13 / / : : ( ) / 1395 /01 /

9 Journal of Isfahan Medical School Received: Vol. 3, No. 01, 1 st Week, December 2016 Accepted: Comparison of the Absorbed Doses of Eyes, Thyroid and Parotid Glands in Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography () and Panoramic Examinations Using CRANEX 3D Rasha KhajooeiFard 1, Mohammad Bagher Tavakoli 2, Mojdeh Mahdizadeh 3, Akbar Hasanzadeh Abstract Original Article Background: As the application of the cone beam computed tomography () is increasing in dental radiology and the departments with this equipment are developing, it seems that the determination of absorbed dose and evaluation of ionizing radiation risk from is essential. In this study, the absorbed dose of eyes, thyroid and parotid glands were compared in both examinations of dental and panoramic with CRANEX 3D machine. Methods: For each patient, 5 thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLDs) were placed as a pair in the back of upper eyelids, a pair 2 cm ahead of small anterior ear cartilage and the last one in the middle of neck on a prominence. The average absorbed dose was calculated for comparison of absorbed doses of different organs in two examinations. Findings: In panoramic examination, right eye with ± cgy and right parotid with ± cgy had the lowest and the highest mean absorbed doses, respectively. In examination, the highest and the lowest mean doses belonged to the right parotid (0.65 ± 0.078) and the left eye ( ± 0.00), respectively. Mean absorbed doses for eyes, parotid and thyroid in panoramic was ± 0.002, ± 0.051, ± and in ± 0.005,.10 ± 0.70, ± 0.051, respectively. The absorbed doses show meaningful differences for all organs in two examinations (P for all). Conclusion: Because of the wider beam (cone beam) and higher exposure factors in, the absorbed doses in this examination are higher than those of panoramic examination (more than 10 times). Keywords: Dental cone beam computed tomography (), Panoramic, Absorbed dose, Thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD) Citation: KhajooeiFard R, Tavakoli MB, Mahdizadeh M, Hasanzadeh A. Comparison of the Absorbed Doses of Eyes, Thyroid and Parotid Glands in Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography () and Panoramic Examinations Using CRANEX 3D. J Isfahan Med Sch 2016; 3(01): MSc Student, Department of Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran 2 Professor, Department of Physics and Medical Engineering, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran 3 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran Educator, Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran Corresponding Author: Rasha KhajooeiFard, rasha.kh66@yahoo.com /01 / 3