File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography

TitleComparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography
Authors
Issue Date2009
PublisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tripleo
Citation
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology And Endodontology, 2009, v. 107 n. 4, p. 559-565 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: The objective of this study was to compare typical patient radiation dose delivered in implant imaging with spiral computed tomography (CT), conventional spiral tomography, and cone-beam CT (CBCT). Study design: The Scanora (Orion Corporation Soredex, Helsinki, Finland), Spiral HiSpeed/Fxi (General Electric, Milwaukee, WI), and Classic iCAT (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA) units were selected to represent conventional spiral tomography, spiral CT, and CBCT, respectively. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used in a Rando phantom to measure radiation-absorbed doses to the lenses, parotid glands, submandibular glands, sublingual gland, and the thyroid for maxillary and mandibular implant imaging techniques. Results: Spiral CT delivered the highest absorbed dose, whereas CBCT delivered the lowest in both maxillary and mandibular implant scans. The salivary glands received the highest absorbed doses. Scanora delivered lower radiation doses than CBCT when the anterior region of the maxilla or mandible was irradiated. Conclusion: In implant imaging, CT delivers the highest radiation dose to the salivary glands, whereas the CBCT system studied delivers the lowest dose. Irrespective of imaging modality, during implant imaging as conducted for this study, salivary glands receive most radiation. © 2009 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/57987
ISSN
2011 Impact Factor: 1.457
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChau, ACMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFung, Ken_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-05-31T03:21:55Z-
dc.date.available2010-05-31T03:21:55Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_HK
dc.identifier.citationOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology And Endodontology, 2009, v. 107 n. 4, p. 559-565en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1079-2104en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/57987-
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objective of this study was to compare typical patient radiation dose delivered in implant imaging with spiral computed tomography (CT), conventional spiral tomography, and cone-beam CT (CBCT). Study design: The Scanora (Orion Corporation Soredex, Helsinki, Finland), Spiral HiSpeed/Fxi (General Electric, Milwaukee, WI), and Classic iCAT (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA) units were selected to represent conventional spiral tomography, spiral CT, and CBCT, respectively. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used in a Rando phantom to measure radiation-absorbed doses to the lenses, parotid glands, submandibular glands, sublingual gland, and the thyroid for maxillary and mandibular implant imaging techniques. Results: Spiral CT delivered the highest absorbed dose, whereas CBCT delivered the lowest in both maxillary and mandibular implant scans. The salivary glands received the highest absorbed doses. Scanora delivered lower radiation doses than CBCT when the anterior region of the maxilla or mandible was irradiated. Conclusion: In implant imaging, CT delivers the highest radiation dose to the salivary glands, whereas the CBCT system studied delivers the lowest dose. Irrespective of imaging modality, during implant imaging as conducted for this study, salivary glands receive most radiation. © 2009 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tripleoen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontologyen_HK
dc.rightsOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology. Copyright © Mosby, Inc.en_HK
dc.subject.meshCone-Beam Computed Tomographyen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Implantation, Endosseousen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Implantsen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshLens, Crystalline - radiographyen_HK
dc.subject.meshMandible - radiographyen_HK
dc.subject.meshPhantoms, Imagingen_HK
dc.subject.meshRadiation Dosageen_HK
dc.subject.meshRadiography, Dental - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshSialographyen_HK
dc.subject.meshThermoluminescent Dosimetryen_HK
dc.subject.meshThyroid Gland - radiographyen_HK
dc.subject.meshTomography, Spiral Computed - methodsen_HK
dc.titleComparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomographyen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1079-2104&volume=107&spage=559&epage=565&date=2009&atitle=Comparison+of+radiation+dose+for+implant+imaging+using+conventional+spiral+tomography,+computed+tomography,+and+cone-beam+computed+tomographyen_HK
dc.identifier.emailChau, ACM:ansonc@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChau, ACM=rp00044en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.11.009en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid19168378-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-62849123566en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros155055en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-62849123566&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume107en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage559en_HK
dc.identifier.epage565en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000264559400024-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChau, ACM=9633648600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFung, K=7202935128en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats