Dental X-Rays and Risk of Meningioma; the Jury is Still Out

Tetradis, Sotirios; White, Stuart C.

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.06.012

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to data analysis, odds ratios were presented without confidence intervals, which are meaningless in terms of significance and therefore voids any conclusions that may have been drawn from the data. A commentary by Tetradis et al also proposed that the association between meningiomas and dental exposure observed by Clause et al may have been due to increased numbers of dental X-rays taken for referred facial pain from meningiomas or the presence of head trauma (Tetradis et al 2012).…”

Section: Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive review of the literature on the biological effects from dental X-ray exposures

Chauhan

Wilkins

2019

International Journal of Radiation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Routine dental X-rays are among the most common sources of ionizing radiation exposure for healthy individuals globally, with 300 examinations/1000 individuals/year as documented by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) global survey of medical radiation usage and exposure. Furthermore, in the United States of America, an increased use of dental radiography is evident. However, with the shift from using film to digital image receptors, the dose of radiation per routine examination has decreased. Despite this, there remains public concern of dental X-rays. This continuing concern highlights the need to review the literature on biological and health effects related to exposure, from dental X-rays. Material and methods: This report presents studies investigating biological and health effects related to exposures using dental X-rays in patients and provides a critical evaluation. Relevant studies specific to dental X-rays are reviewed from 1970 and onward with the bulk data in this field resulting from epidemiological and biomonitoring studies. Results: While, most epidemiological studies suggest a possible correlation between head/neck related tumors and exposure to dental X-rays, evidence for causation is lacking. Biomonitoring studies suggest that exposure to low-level radiation such as that of dental radiography may not be a factor in inducing long-term chromosomal damage, but may result in localized cytotoxicity in the irradiated region of the mouth, with no long-term harm. Conclusions: In general, the total number of studies is low and the majority of the data has been generated from poorly designed experiments. This review will highlight shortcomings that could influence outcomes and provide a more balanced interpretation that could impact the public perception and the level of public concern on the health effects resulting from dental X-rays.

show abstract

Section: Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive review of the literature on the biological effects from dental X-ray exposures

Chauhan

Wilkins

2019

International Journal of Radiation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 Nonetheless, recent concerns over radiation risks associated with these procedures have also been raised in dentistry, 13 particularly in association with intracranial meningioma 14,15 and thyroid cancer. 16,17 Although the validity of these epidemiologic studies has been called into serious question, 18,19 the contribution of xray exposure from dentistry to per capita annual dose may well be increasing, as is the case in diagnostic imaging in general, which now accounts for almost 50% (3000 mSv) of annual per capita radiation dose in the United States (6200 mSv). 2 Perhaps the major contributing factor in the general rise of dose in dentistry has been the rapid rise in the availability and use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in clinical practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Image Gently in Dentistry campaign: promotion of responsible use of maxillofacial radiology in dentistry for children

White

Scarfe

Schulze

et al. 2014

Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A look at the actual relative frequencies unveils the reason: Both cases and controls report this case with nearly the same (high) relative frequencies: 95.8% and 92.2%, respectively. As is demonstrated in the Appendix, the odds ratio may not simply be translated into a probability ratio (relative risk) if high probabilities are regarded (Davies et al, 1998)-an important fact that is too often overlooked (Tetradis et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%