Evolution of diagnostic reference levels in Spanish intraoral radiology

Alcaraz, M.; Velasco, Fernanda Zerbinato Bispo; Beneyto, Yolanda Martínez; Alcaraz-Saura, Miguel; Velasco, Eduardo Sánchez; Achel, G.D.; Canteras, Manuel

doi:10.1093/rpd/ncr467

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors emphasise the legal reasons for conducting these types of studies. For example, Alcaraz et al (15) mention the legal status of mandatory annual DRL reviews as part of the quality assurance programme in Spain. This may serve as a reason for conducting such studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Reference Levels in Dental Radiology: A Systematic Review

MATJAŠIČ¹

2022

MIRTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to review published articles in the fi eld of diagnostic reference levels in dental radiology, and to determine which areas have not been covered yet and require further scientifi c studies. The aim was also to determine if there are any dose optimization procedures suggested after DRL establishment. Materials and methods: A systematic review was performed using the Science Direct, PubMed, CINAHL (via EBSCOhost) and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source (via EBSCOhost) databases, following the Cochrane Network study design guidelines. Articles were analysed and presented by author, year of publication, country of origin, technology (e.g. digital radiography, computed radiography and fi lm-screen), radiographic type (e.g. intraoral, panoramic and CBCT), units of measurement and main conclusions for each study. Results: Thirteen scientifi c articles on dose reference values in dental radiology were evaluated. Full-access articles published between 2001 and 2021 were used, and both reviews and original research articles were included. The studies address the defi nition or analysis of DRLs in intraoral and panoramic dental imaging and in dental CBCT imaging. Many studies report results based on diff erent image-receiving systems (e.g. DR, CR and fi lm-screen). The fi lm-screen system yielded the highest dose values of all three systems. All studies reviewed describe DRLs for the adult population, while only four also describe paediatric DRLs. Conclusion: Most EU countries have not yet set national DRLs for dental radiology. Most studies set or revise DRLs at the national level and compare them with guidelines from literature and from similar studies conducted in other countries. Most of these studies observed DRLs in the adult population. DRLs should also be set in the fi eld of dental CBCT imaging, as the use of this technology is rapidly increasing and the dose levels are incomparably higher than in general dental radiography. Keywords: dental radiography, diagnostic reference levels, intraoral imaging, panoramic dental imaging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Reference Levels in Dental Radiology: A Systematic Review

MATJAŠIČ¹

2022

MIRTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several countries[ 8 9 ] and organizations[ 10 ] have already proposed DRL in dental radiography. Similar DRL studies were undertaken by our group too, in India, in computed tomography (CT),[ 11 ] but so far no serious studies have been undertaken in dental radiography.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Regional Diagnostic Reference Levels in Dental Radiography in Tamil Nadu

Jose

Kumar

Govindarajan

et al. 2022

Journal of Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this article is to assess Tamil Nadu adult diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) by collecting radiation dose data from the four different dental modalities. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out using routine adult exposure settings in 131 intraoral, 75 panoramic, 35 cephalometric, and 10 dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) X-ray devices. DRLs were assessed for intraoral and extraoral (panoramic, cephalometric, and CBCT) examinations in terms of incident air kerma (Ka, i) and kerma area product (PKA), respectively. Air kerma measurements, for all dental units, were made using calibrated RTI black Piranha 557 dosimeter (RTI Electronics AB, Sweden). The dosimeter was kept at the exit cone of the X-ray tube and on the detector side of the X-ray unit for intraoral and extraoral air kerma measurements, respectively. The obtained air kerma in extraoral modalities is multiplied with the beam area to evaluate PKA. Results: The third quartile values calculated from the median for adult intraoral (mandibular molar), panoramic, cephalometric, and CBCT were 1.5 mGy, 116 mGycm2, 40 mGycm2, and 532 mGycm2, respectively. The proposed DRL in the present study was comparable to those reported in Germany, Greece, the UK, Japan, and Korea. Conclusion: This study revealed the need for dose management and radiation dose optimization, in various dental facilities in the state. It was also found that dental facilities employed with the digital type of detector are not always related to lower exposure.

show abstract

“…However, in dentistry, radiography is considered as the primary means to get a clinical diagnosis. Consequently, a large number of patients require radiographic exams (Alcaraz et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of radiation protection conditions in intraoral radiology

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The dental radiology represents about 20% of human exposure to radiation in radio diagnostic.Although the doses practiced in intraoral dentistry are considered low, they should not be ignored due to the volume of the performed procedures. This study presents the radiation protection conditions for intraoral radiology in Curitiba -PR. Methods: Data was collected through a quantitative field research of a descriptive nature during the period between September of 2013 and December of 2014. The survey sample consisted of 97 dentists and 130 intraoral equipments. The data related to the equipments was collected using structured questions and quality control evaluations. The evaluations of the entrance skin dose, the size of the radiation field and the total filtration were performed with dosimetry kits provided and evaluated by IRD/CNEN. The exposure time and voltage were measured using noninvasive detectors. The occupational dose was verified by thermoluminescent dosimeters. The existence of personal protection equipment, the type of image processing and knowledge of dentists about radiation protection were verified through the application of a questionnaire. Results: Among the survey's results, it is important to emphasize that 90% of the evaluated equipments do not meet all the requirements of the Brazilian radiation protection standards. Conclusion: The lack of knowledge about radiation protection, the poor operating conditions of the equipments, and the image processing through visual method are mainly responsible for the unnecessary exposure of patients to ionizing radiation.

show abstract

Evolution of diagnostic reference levels in Spanish intraoral radiology

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Diagnostic Reference Levels in Dental Radiology: A Systematic Review

Diagnostic Reference Levels in Dental Radiology: A Systematic Review

Assessment of Regional Diagnostic Reference Levels in Dental Radiography in Tamil Nadu

Evaluation of radiation protection conditions in intraoral radiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About