Citation Information :
Mehdizadeh M, Bagherieh S. Evaluation of Relationship between Exposure Parameters and Maxillofacial Bone Quality with Salivary Glands Absorbed Dose in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (5):568-573.
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the protective effect of jaw bone on the dose of salivary glands and its relationship with radiation conditions.
Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study, seven dried human skulls were used. In each mandible, six dosimeters were placed in six salivary gland regions numbered in visible light absorbent envelopes. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were taken from each mandible with a constant kV of 90 and mA varied from 6, 8, and 10. The absorbed dose was calculated using SOLAR 2A. The bone quality of each of the six areas was obtained using densitometry tool in On Demand software. Finally, the results were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23 with covariance and Tukey tests (α = 0.05).
Results: The results of covariance analysis and Tukey test indicated that the sublingual salivary gland had the highest absorption dose. Meanwhile, the results of the analysis showed that the absorption rate of the glands increased by increasing the radiation conditions from 6 to 8 and increasing from 8 to 10 mA (p < 0.001). The results of Pearson analysis showed an inverse relationship between absorbed dose and bone quality (r = –0.327) (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the absorption rate of salivary glands will increase with increasing radiation conditions, while increasing the quality of mandibular bone, the absorption dose will decrease.
Clinical significance: The clinical significance is to reduce patient's absorbed dose in order to decrease the risk of mutation and cancer formation.
Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol 2014 Oct;6(10):794-807.
Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging 2015 Feb;6(1):1-16.
Chidiac JJ, Shofer FS, Al-Kutoub a, Laster LL, Ghafari J. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2002 May; 5(2):104-113.
Matzen LH, Wenzel A. Efficacy of CBCT for assessment of impacted mandibular third molars: a review-based on hierarchical model of evidence. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):20140189.
Demeslay J, Vergez S, Serrano E, Chaynes P, Cantet P, Chaput B, de Bonnecaze G. Morphological concordance between CBCT and MDCT: a paranasal sinus-imaging anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat 2016 Jan;38(1):71-78.
De Cock J, Zanca F, Canning J, Pauwels R, Hermans R. A comparative study for image quality and radiation dose of a cone beam computed tomography scanner and a multislice computed tomography scanner for paranasal sinus imaging. Eur Radiol 2015 Jul;25(7):1891-1900.
Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indication for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):20140282.
Larheim TA, Abrahamsson AK, Kristensen M, Arvidsson LZ. Temporomandibular joint diagnostics using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(1):20140235.
Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent 2010 Mar;2009:634567.
Fontenot JD, Lee AK, Newhauser WD. Risk of secondary malignant neoplasms from proton therapy and intensitymodulated x-ray therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 Jun;74(2):616-622.
Yoon M, Ahn SH, Kim J, Shin DH, Park SY, Lee SB, Shin KH, Cho KH. Radiation-induced cancers from modern radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010 Aug;77(5):1477-1485.
Nomura Y, Watanabe H, Shirotsu K, Honda E, Sumi Y, Kurabayshi T. Stability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral content. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 May;24(5):543-548.
Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Jan;26(1):e1-e7.
Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010 Dec;110(6):770-776.
Palomo JM, Rao PS, Hans MG. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Jun;105(6):773-782.
Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003 Jul;32(4):229-234.
Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 May;133(5):640.e1-640.e5.
Ludlow JB, Walker C. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013 Dec;144(6):802-817.
Sur J, Seki K, Koizumi H, Nakajima K, Okano T. Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010 Sep;110(3):e29-e33.
Akyalcin S, English JD, Abramovitch KM, Rong XJ. Measurement of skin dose from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Head Face Med 2013 Oct;9(1):28.
Morant JJ, Salvadó M, Hernández-Girón I, Casanovas R, Ortega R, Calzado A. Dosimetry of a cone beam CT device for oral and maxillofacial radiology using Monte Carlo techniques and ICRP adult reference computational phantoms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014 Mar;42(3):92555893.
Ding GX, Munro P, Pawlowski J, Malcolm A, Coffey CW. Reducing radiation exposure to patients from kV-CBCT imaging. Radiother Oncol 2010 Dec;97(3):585-592.