Title of article :
Dosimetry of Occupational Radiation around Panoramic X-ray Apparatus
Author/Authors :
Pakravan, A. H Department of Prosthodontics - Faculty of Dentistry - Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran , Aghamiri, S. M. R Department of Radiation Medicine - Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran , Bamdadian, T Department of Prosthesis - Faculty of Dentistry - Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran , Gholami, M Obesity and Eating Habits Research Center - Endocrinology and Metabolism Molecular– Cellular Sciences Institute - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Moshfeghi, M Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology - Faculty of Dentistry - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract :
Background: Panoramic imaging is one of the most common imaging methods
in dentistry. Regarding the side-effects of ionizing radiation, it is necessary to survey
different aspects and details of panoramic imaging. In this study, we compared the
absorbed x-ray dose around two panoramic x-ray units: PM 2002 CC Proline (Planmeca,
Helsinki, Finland) and Cranex Tome (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland).
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 15 thermoluminescet
dosemeters (TLD-100) were placed in 3 semi-circles of 40cm, 80cm and 120cm radii
in order to estimate x-ray dose. Around each unit, the number of TLDs in each semicircle
was 5 with equal intervals. The center of semicircles accords with the patient’s
position. Each TLD was exposed 40 times. These dosemeters were read out with a
Harshaw Model 4000 TLD Reader (USA). The calibration processing and the reading
of dosemeters were performed by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.
Results: The mean absorbed dose in three lines of PM 2002 CC Proline was
123.2±15.1, 118.0±11.0 and 108.0±9.1 μSv, (p=0.013). The results were 140.4±15.2,
120.2±10.4 and 111.6±11.2 μSv in Cranex Tome (p=0.208), which reveals no significant
difference between two systems.
Conclusion: There are no significant differences between the mean absorbed
dose of surveyed models in panoramic imaging by two units (PM 2002 CC Proline
and Cranex Tome). These results were less than occupational exposure recommended
by ICRP, even at the highest calculated doses.
Keywords :
Occupational Exposure , Panoramic , Radiography , Radiation Dosage , X-Rays
Journal title :
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering