Assessment of image quality and exposure parameters of an intraoral portable X-rays device

Zenóbio, Élton Gonçalves; Zenóbio, Madelon Af; Azevedo, Carolina Drumond de Barros e; Nogueira, Maria do Socorro; Almeida, C de; Manzi, Flávio Ricardo

doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180329

Cited by 10 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Es decir, el operador puede estabilizarlos al sujetarlos con ambas manos (Figura 1). En estos casos, la exposición se realiza mientras el equipo es sostenido por el operador, ya que el equipo cuenta con un disparador en el mismo equipo (12,13)…”

Section: Características Generalesunclassified

“…En relación con el kV, en los EP depende de la carga de la batería, a diferencia de los equipos fijos y móviles, que funcionan con corriente eléctrica (18). Si bien diversas investigaciones han encontrado una calidad de imagen aceptable al usar EP, similar a la obtenida con los equipos fijos (13,19,20), el inconveniente se presenta con el uso diario del equipo, que provoca una disminución en la carga de la batería. Por lo tanto, para evitar disminución en la calidad de imagen por un menor kV, se recomienda mantener siempre la batería con carga (21), una recarga regular y el uso de baterías más eficientes (22).…”

Section: Características Generalesunclassified

“…En relación con el mA, se ha descrito que al usar un menor mA en el EP, el tiempo de exposición debe de aumentarse, para poder obtener una mejor calidad de imagen (13,18). Un aumento en el tiempo de exposición produce un aumento en la dosis de radiación al paciente y al operador, en el caso de los EP.…”

Section: Características Generalesunclassified

“…Un aumento en el tiempo de exposición produce un aumento en la dosis de radiación al paciente y al operador, en el caso de los EP. Además, debido a que los EP pesan entre 1.8 y 5.0 Kg (13,18), el mantener el EP sin moverse durante el tiempo que dure la exposición supone un esfuerzo para el operador, resultando en un deterioro de la imagen causada por el movimiento del paciente o del operador (23). Por lo tanto, para evitar disminución en la calidad de imagen por movimiento debido a un mayor tiempo de exposición, se recomienda mantener las exposiciones con tiempos menores a 1segundo (18,19), y el uso de una base para la estabilización de los EP (13,18).…”

Section: Características Generalesunclassified

“…Debido al aumento en el riesgo de mayor radiación al operador (11) diversos autores e instituciones recomiendan que los EP solo deben usarse en una base y ser activados desde un área protegida (a distancia o detrás de una barrera) (12,13,18,29), con el fin de reducir la exposición del operador (12,18,29). Si bien las dosis pueden estar por debajo de los límites de dosis establecidos para el operador en un periodo de tiempo (13,30), la dosis al operador siempre es mayor que la dosis que recibiría operando un equipo de rayos x fijo o móvil (12,27,28). Cabe recalcar que estos límites se han establecido para evitar la aparición de los efectos tisulares, pero el riesgo de carcinogénesis en bajas dosis se mantiene latente (3,4).…”

Section: B C Aunclassified

See 4 more Smart Citations

Update on Hand-Held X-Ray Devices in Dentistry: a Literature Review

Barba

Cascante-Sequeira

2021

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last two decades, the use of portable intraoral X-ray devices, stabilized by the operator, has increased. While all radiographic devices present an inherent risk from ionizing radiation, improper use of portable devices can increase operator exposure. Use of portable devices on a tripod or powered from a protected area is recommended. However, in highly justified cases, for using without these accessories, recommendations should be followed to reduce operator exposure. Because radioprotection is essential when using X-rays, fixed dental radiographic devices should be favored over portable equipment since the first provides a lower radiation dose to the operator.

show abstract

Section: Características Generalesunclassified

Section: B C Aunclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Update on Hand-Held X-Ray Devices in Dentistry: a Literature Review

Barba

Cascante-Sequeira

2021

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Comparison of Contemporary Portable X-Ray Systems

Dillon

Johnson

Broome

et al. 2020

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jessica Ruth Dillon: A Comparison of Contemporary Portable X-ray Systems (Under the direction of Brandon Johnson) Using optically stimulated luminescent (OSL) dosimetry, full mouth series (FMX) effective dose (E) and operator dose were calculated for adult and child anthropomorphic phantoms using a wall-mounted source with circular collimation (Cir) and rectangular collimation (RC), the NOMAD Pro 2 TM handheld with Cir and RC, and the Xray2go handheld with Cir. To assess the impact of RC on exposure, an exploratory device positioning technique was evaluated. Technique errors and line pair resolution (LP) were also assessed. Dosimetry differences were analyzed using Analysis of Variance. Adult handheld E with Cir was significantly lower than conventional Cir for both handheld devices (p<.0001). Child handheld E with Cir was similar to conventional Cir for the NOMAD TM (p=.0984). RC E was significantly lower than all Cir (p<.0001). Operator groin dose was significantly higher than thyroid, chest and trigger hand for all handheld modalities (p<.0001). Prevalence of technique errors was not different between devices (p=.07). Mean LP resolution was similar for all modalities. iv PREFACE LCDR Jessica R. Dillon, Dental Corps, Navy Medicine Education, Training and Logistics Command, is a resident at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Adams School of Dentistry, training in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology.

show abstract

Handheld intraoral dental x-ray devices should supplement but not replace conventional radiographic equipment

Geist

2021

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent changes in the laws regulating dental practice in some jurisdictions have increased interest in the use of handheld portable dental x-ray units for intraoral radiography. These devices, which have been commercially available for many years, include a battery-powered x-ray generator that is not fixed to an immobile place in the operatory but is instead held by the operator during exposure. In some configurations, the unit can be attached to a mobile tripod and operated by cable from a location distant from the generator. However, the principal differences from conventional wallmounted units include the fact that the operator often touches the x-ray generator during the procedure; there are no physical barriers for radiation protection except for a radiation backscatter shield on the unit for operator protection; and the proper geometry of the beamlimiting device, intraoral sensor, and patient can be difficult to ensure. These potential pitfalls have raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of radiographic procedures conducted with handheld systems.

show abstract

Assessment of image quality and exposure parameters of an intraoral portable X-rays device

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Update on Hand-Held X-Ray Devices in Dentistry: a Literature Review

Update on Hand-Held X-Ray Devices in Dentistry: a Literature Review

A Comparison of Contemporary Portable X-Ray Systems

Handheld intraoral dental x-ray devices should supplement but not replace conventional radiographic equipment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About