Small field of view cone beam CT temporomandibular joint imaging dosimetry

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 10, 2013, Pages

  Lukat, T D ^a   Wong, J C M ^a   Lam, E W N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Radiation dosimetry; Temporomandibular joint

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; EQUIPMENT; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; MOUTH MUCOSA; OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE DOSIMETRY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOGRAPHY; RELATIVE BIOLOGIC EFFECTIVENESS; SALIVARY GLAND; TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT; THYROID GLAND; DEVICES; PROCEDURES; RADIATION RESPONSE;

CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSIMETRY; TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MANDIBLE; MOUTH MUCOSA; OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE DOSIMETRY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS; SALIVARY GLANDS; TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT; THYROID GLAND;

EID: 84891840772     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130082     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Larheim TA. Current trends in temporomandibular joint imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 80: 555-576.
2. Ahmad M, Hollender L, Anderson Q, Kartha K, Ohrbach R, Truelove EL, et al. Research diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (RDC/TMD): development of image analysis criteria and examiner reliability for image analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 844-860. doi:10.1259/dmfr/60489374
3. Barghan S, Tetradis S, Mallya S. Application of cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the temporomandibular joints. Aust Dent J 2012; 57(Suppl. 1): 109-118. doi: 10.1111/ j.1834-7819.2011.01663.x
4. Ribeiro-Rotta RF, Marques KD, Pacheco MJ, Leles CR. Do computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging add to temporomandibular disorder treatment? A systematic review of diagnostic efficacy. J Oral Rehabil 2011; 38: 120-135.
5. Westesson PL, Katzberg RW, Tallents RH, Sanchez-Woodworth RE, Svensson SA. CT and MR of the temporomandibular joint: comparison with autopsy specimens. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 148: 1165-1171. doi: 10.2214/ajr.148.6.1165
6. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 106-114. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018
7. Honda K, Larheim TA, Maruhashi K, Matsumoto K, Iwai K. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on an autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 152-157.
8. Ludlow JB. Dosimetry of the Kodak 9000 3D small FOV CBCT and panoramic unit. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: e29.
9. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G, and i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-226. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323
10. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37: 1-332.
11. IAEA. Technical reports series No. 457. Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice. Vienna: IAEA; 2007.
12. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-1243.
13. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippinocott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
14. Wong K, Forster BB, Li DK, Aldrich JE. A simple method of assessing the temporomandibular joints with helical computer tomography: technical note. Can Assoc Radiol J 1995; 50: 117-120.
15. Jadu F, Yaffe MJ, Lam EW. A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39: 257-263. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/62878962
16. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-271.doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028
17. Nickoloff E. Current adult and pediatric CT doses. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32: 250-260. doi: 10.1007/s00247-002-0677-8
18. Huda W. Effective doses to adult and pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32: 272-279. doi: 10.1007/s00247-002-0680-0
19. Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Reference doses for paediatric computed tomography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 90: 249-252.
20. Thomas KE, Wang B. Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children's hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38: 645-656. doi: 10.1007/s00247-008-0794-0 12DUMMY