Radiation dose in non-dental cone beam CT applications: a systematic review
- 100 Downloads
Radiation-induced health risks are broadly questioned in the literature. As cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is increasingly used in non-dental examinations, its effective dose needs to be known. This study aimed to review the published evidence on effective dose of non-dental CBCT for diagnostic use by focusing on dosimetry system used to estimate dose.
Materials and methods
A systematic review of the literature was performed on 12 November 2017. All the literature up to this date was included. The PubMed and web of science databases were searched. Studies were screened for inclusion based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews.
Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in our review. Thirteen and two of them examined one and two anatomical areas, respectively. The anatomical areas were: ear (6), paranasal sinuses (4), ankle (3), wrist (2), knee (1), and cervical spine (1). Effective dose was estimated by different methods: (i) RANDO phantom associated with thermoluminescent dosimeters (6), metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimeters (3), and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (1). (ii) Scanner outputs, namely computed tomography dose index (1) and dose area product (2). (iii) Monte Carlo simulations (2).
CBCT of extremities, cervical spine, ears and paranasal sinuses was found to be a low-dose volumetric imaging technique. Effective doses varied significantly because of different exposure settings of CBCT-units and different dosimetry systems used to estimate dose.
KeywordsRadiation dosage Effective dose Cone beam computed tomography Head and neck imaging Skeletal imaging
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 11.Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ (2014) Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 15:20140197Google Scholar
- 15.Lechuga L, Weidlich GA (2016) Cone beam CT vs. fan beam CT: a comparison of image quality and dose delivered between two differing CT imaging modalities. Cureus 8:778Google Scholar
- 20.California Senate Bill 1237. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1237_bill_20100929_chaptered.html. Accessed Feb 2018
- 21.Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/59/oj. Accessed Feb 2018
- 26.Valentin J (2007) International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
- 41.Bacher K, Mermuys K, Casselman J, Thierens H (2009) Evaluation of effective patient dose in paranasal sinus imaging: comparison of cone beam CT, digital tomosynthesis and multi slice CT. In: Dössel O, Schlegel WC (eds) World congress on medical physics and biomedical engineering, Munich, Germany. IFMBE proceedings, vol 25/3. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 46.American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2010) Report of AAPM Task Group 111: the future of CT dosimetry—comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of radiation dose in X-ray computed tomography. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College ParkGoogle Scholar
- 49.Hart D, Wall BF (2002) Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental X-ray examinations; report NRPB-W4; National Radiological Protection Board, UKGoogle Scholar
- 51.Nardi C, Taliani GG, Castellani A, De Falco L, Selvi V, Calistri L (2017) Repetition of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam CT: comparison among three different kinds of head support. J Int Soc Prevent Commun Dent 7:208–213Google Scholar