期刊文献+

口腔颌面锥形束CT与螺旋CT辐射剂量的比较研究 被引量:29

Comparative dosimetry of dental cone-beam computed tomography and multi-slice computed tomography for oral and maxillofacial radiology
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的比较口腔颌面锥形束CT与螺旋CT在扫描口腔颌面部相同部位时的辐射剂量,为临床安全有效应用提供实验数据。方法使用热释光剂量芯片测量两种口腔颌面锥形束CT和一种螺旋CT在扫描头颈部体模上颌、下颌、上颌+下颌时的吸收剂量。按照国际放射防护委员会2007年推荐的组织权重因子,计算各个扫描程序的有效剂量。使用单因素方差分析对所有扫描程序得到的有效剂量进行比较分析,P〈0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果两种口腔颌面锥形束CT的辐射剂量范围41.8~249.1ixSv。螺旋CT对上颌、下颌及上颌+下颌进行扫描时的有效剂量分别为506.7、829.9和1066.1μSv,螺旋cT辐射剂量显著高于两种口腔颌面锥形束CT(P〈0.001)。同一机型仅进行上颌或下颌扫描的辐射剂量显著低于同时扫描上颌+下颌时的辐射剂量(P值分别为0.003和0.001)。结论在对口腔颌面部相同区域进行扫描时,以上两种口腔颌面锥形束CT的辐射剂量均比螺旋CT低;而两种口腔颌面锥形束CT的辐射剂量会因曝光参数的不同而有所差异。 Objective To compare the effective radiation dose levels of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with those of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) when scanning the same maxillofacial regions. Methods The effective doses of 2 CBCT ( NewTom 9000 and DCT Pro) and 1 MSCT (bright speed edge select 8 slice ) scanners were calculated using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) that were placed in a head and neck phantom, and expressed according to the International Commission on Radiation Protection(ICRP) 2007 guidelines. Results Effective dose values ranged from 41.8 to 249. 1 μSv for CBCT. The doses of MSCT scanning for maxilla, mandible and maxilla + mandible were 506. 7, 829. 9 and 1066. 1 p, Sv, respectively. Dose levels of scanning only for maxilla or mandible were significantly lower than those for maxilla + mandible. Conclusions When scanning the same maxillofacial regions, the dose levels for NewTom 9000 and DCT Pro CBCT images were lower than those for Bright speed edge select 8 slice MSCT images. Dose levels reduction could be obtained when smaller regions were scanned.
出处 《中华口腔医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2011年第10期595-599,共5页 Chinese Journal of Stomatology
关键词 辐射剂量 体层摄影术 螺旋计算机 锥形束CT Radiation dosage Tomography,spiral computed Cone beam computed tomography
  • 相关文献

参考文献20

  • 1Gahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H. Dental CT: imaging technique, anatomy, and pathologic conditions of the jaws. Eur Radio1,2003,13 ( 2 ) :366-376.
  • 2Coudyzer W, Vandermeulen D, van Cleynenbreugel J, et al. Radiation dose vs. image quality for low-dose CT protocols of the head for maxillofacial surgery and oral implant planning. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2005,117 ( 1/3 ) :211-216.
  • 3Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Snkovic P. Clinical applications of conebeam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc, 2006,72( 1 ) :75-80.
  • 4Ludlow 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 ( 1 ) : 106-114.
  • 5No authors listed. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP, 2007,37(2/4) :1-32.
  • 6Horowitz Y, Olko P. The effects of ionisation density on the thennoluminescence response (efficiency) of LiF: Mg, Ti and LiF : Mg, Cu, P. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2004,109 ( 4 ) : 331-348.
  • 7Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, et al. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2006,35 (4) : 219-226.
  • 8International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements ( ICRU ) . Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement ( report 44). Bethesda (MD) : ICRU, 1989 : 189.
  • 9Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries.Lancet, 2004,363 ( 9406 ) : 345-351.
  • 10Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M, et al. Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol,2008,168 (6) :620-631.

同被引文献199

引证文献29

二级引证文献209

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部