Image quality assessment and medical physics evaluation of different portable dental X-ray units

Pittayapat, Pisha; Oliveira‐Santos, Christiano; Thevissen, Patrick; Michielsen, Koen; Bergans, Niki; Willems, Guy; Debruyckere, Deborah; Jacobs, Reinhilde

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.041

Cited by 36 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18 Image quality depends on the interaction of X-ray device, exposure time, exposure geometry and image receptor. In the study of Pittayapat et al, 19 it was concluded that handheld portable X-ray devices produce satisfactory image quality for use in forensic odontology. In forensic use, for reasons of image quality and ease of access, Interpol recommends to use digital radiographic systems to record the (dental) data of victims in a disaster victim identification procedure.…”

Section: Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification and good practice in using handheld portable dental X-ray equipment: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR)

Berkhout¹,

Suomalainen²,

Brüllmann³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handheld portable X-ray devices are increasingly used for intraoral radiography. This development introduces new challenges to staff and patient safety, for which new or revised risk assessments must be made and acted upon prior to use. Major issues might be: difficulties in using rectangular collimation with beam aiming devices, more complex matching of exposure settings to the X-ray receptor used (e.g. longer exposure times), movements owing to the units' weight, protection of the operator and third persons, and the use in uncontrolled environments. These problems may result in violation of the "as low as reasonably achievable'', that is, ALARA principle by an increase in (re)exposures compared with the other available intraoral X-ray devices. Hence, the use of handheld portable X-ray devices should be considered only after careful and documented evaluation (which might be performed based on medical physics support), when there is evidence that handheld operation has benefits over traditional modalities and when no new risks to the operators and/or third parties are caused. It is expected that the use of handheld portable X-ray devices will be very exceptional, and for justified situations only. Special attention should be drawn to beamaiming devices, rectangular collimation, the section of the X-ray receptor, focus-skin distance, and backscatter shielding, and that the unit delivers reproducible dose over the full set of environmental conditions (e.g. battery status and temperature).

show abstract

Section: Image Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification and good practice in using handheld portable dental X-ray equipment: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR)

Berkhout¹,

Suomalainen²,

Brüllmann³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1,2 They are also used in archaeological excavation sites, crime scene/disaster areas for forensic dentistry imaging and veterinary applications. The advantages of these devices extend to dental patients who are homebound or institutionalized with limited mobility and patients undergoing general anaesthesia, [3][4][5] where conventional fixed or mobile X-ray units are not easily available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,[7][8][9][10][11] However, the distance away from the body is variable, dependent on the position of the hands and how the portable X-ray device is held by the operator. In addition, the only integral protection for the operator is a backscatter shield.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, it was also demonstrated that the radiation dose to the operator's hand when using the NOMAD handheld device and protective shielding was 0.1 mGy. 3 The literature from the manufacturer of NOMAD indicated an annual dose of 0.30 mSv and 0.12 mSv for D-and F-speed films, respectively. The dose for digital sensors was also 0.13 mSv per year; this was the normalized average for 7200 exposures per year.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of device position on the operator's radiation dose when using a handheld portable X-ray device

Makdissi

Pawar

Johnson

et al. 2016

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Handheld X-ray devices are now offered in dental practice. Handheld X-ray units challenge the concept of a restricted access to the "controlled area" as they are held by the operator. Although an integral lead shield is provided, the distance from the body is variable, dependent on how the device is held. The aim of this article was to investigate the level of operator dose when using a handheld X-ray device in various positions. Material and Methods: A NOMAD ProÔ Handheld X-ray system (Aribex Inc., Charlotte, NC) fitted with a remote control and mounted on a tripod was used in this study. A maxillofacial phantom ATOM ® Max Dental and Diagnostic Phantom, model 711 HN (CIRS Inc., Norfolk, VA) was used to simulate the patient's head position. A mannequin was used to represent the operator. Pre-calibrated thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) (Qados, Agar Scientific, Stansted, UK) were placed on the mannequin close to the eyes and at the level of thyroid, trunk, waist, hand (right finger 1 left palm) and feet, and three TLDs were used for background radiation. Three test scenarios were investigated; Position 1, close to operators' body and parallel to the ground; Position 2, away from the body with the arms fully extended (approximately 40 cm distance) and parallel to the ground; Position 3, perpendicular to the ground while the arms are partially extended. 30 exposures each of 1 s were performed in each test. Results: Background radiation was measured at 0.0110 mGy. The highest exposure after subtracting background radiation was recorded on the palm of the left hand (0.0310 mGy) at Position 3. The estimated dose to the operator was calculated based on an average workload of 100 intraoral radiographs weekly for a dental practitioner working 46 weeks a year. Conclusions: There is a negligible increase in operator exposure levels using handheld X-ray devices which remain well below the recommended levels of the Ionizing Radiation Regulations 1999. They could however represent an increase from what should be a nil exposure when using a wall-mounted machine. The position of the device relative to the operator has a significant effect on the overall operator's radiation exposure. The use of personal dosemeters is highly recommended to ensure a continuity of low radiation dose exposure. Furthermore, guidance, training and protocols on usage must be in place, strictly adhered to and regular audits are necessary to ensure compliance.

show abstract

“…These provide a number of advantages for the forensic odontologist, including mobility 25 and ease of use. 26 They are battery-operated and therefore cordless, and free the forensic odontologist from the need to have access to electrical power at a scene where radiographs are required 26 (although access to power for battery recharging is needed if the operation requires more than the number of pre-charged batteries available).…”

Section: Choice Of Radiation Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

Collection and recording of radiological information for forensic purposes

Forrest

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic odontology is the application of dental expertise to legal issues. Commonly, it involves the comparison of dental records of a missing person with a deceased individual for the purposes of forensic personal identification, either in a single case, or as part of the response to an event involving multiple simultaneous fatalities (Disaster Victim Identification, or DVI). It may also involve studies to determine the age of an individual, which may be required as part of a forensic identification process, or for another legal purpose such as the determination of legal responsibility, or in connection with immigration. This report examines the types of radiological information currently used in such forensic studies, and discusses how this information may be accessed or recorded, as well as the techniques that are commonly applied to the radiological data to reach a satisfactory outcome for application in forensic casework.Keywords: Dental radiology, forensic, forensic odontology, forensic radiology, radiology.

show abstract

Image quality assessment and medical physics evaluation of different portable dental X-ray units

Cited by 36 publications

References 10 publications

Justification and good practice in using handheld portable dental X-ray equipment: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR)

Justification and good practice in using handheld portable dental X-ray equipment: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR)

The effects of device position on the operator's radiation dose when using a handheld portable X-ray device

Collection and recording of radiological information for forensic purposes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About