TY - JOUR
T1 - Dose area product measurement for diagnostic reference levels and analysis of patient dose in dental radiography
AU - Han, Suchul
AU - Lee, Boram
AU - Shin, Gwisoon
AU - Choi, Jonghak
AU - Kim, Jungmin
AU - Park, Changseo
AU - Park, Hyok
AU - Lee, Kisung
AU - Kim, Youhyun
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by Korea University and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants, funded by the Korean government (MEST) No. M1002511).
PY - 2012/7
Y1 - 2012/7
N2 - In this study, diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) were suggested and patient doses were analysed through the dose-area product value in dental radiography. In intraoral radiography, at three sites, i.e. molar, premolar and incisor on the maxilla and acquired third quartile values: 55.5, 46 and 36.5 mGy cm 2, respectively, were measured. In panoramic, cephalometric and cone beam computed tomography, the values were 120.3, 146 and 3203 mGy cm 2 (16 × 18 cm), respectively. It has been shown that, in intraoral radiography, the patient dose changes proportionally to the value of mA s, but the change in extraoral radiography in response to mA s could not be confirmed. The authors could confirm, however, the difference in dose according to the manufacturer in all dental radiography examinations, except for panoramic radiography. Depending on the size of hospital, there were some differences in patient dose in intraoral radiography, but no difference in patient dose in extraoral radiography.
AB - In this study, diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) were suggested and patient doses were analysed through the dose-area product value in dental radiography. In intraoral radiography, at three sites, i.e. molar, premolar and incisor on the maxilla and acquired third quartile values: 55.5, 46 and 36.5 mGy cm 2, respectively, were measured. In panoramic, cephalometric and cone beam computed tomography, the values were 120.3, 146 and 3203 mGy cm 2 (16 × 18 cm), respectively. It has been shown that, in intraoral radiography, the patient dose changes proportionally to the value of mA s, but the change in extraoral radiography in response to mA s could not be confirmed. The authors could confirm, however, the difference in dose according to the manufacturer in all dental radiography examinations, except for panoramic radiography. Depending on the size of hospital, there were some differences in patient dose in intraoral radiography, but no difference in patient dose in extraoral radiography.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864982137&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/rpd/ncr439
DO - 10.1093/rpd/ncr439
M3 - Article
C2 - 22147923
AN - SCOPUS:84864982137
SN - 0144-8420
VL - 150
SP - 523
EP - 531
JO - Radiation Protection Dosimetry
JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry
IS - 4
M1 - ncr439
ER -
