TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography
AU - Rottke, D.
AU - Grossekettler, L.
AU - Sawada, K.
AU - Poxleitner, P.
AU - Schulze, D.
PY - 2013/12
Y1 - 2013/12
N2 - Objectives: This study investigated the absorbed doses in a full anthropomorphic body phantom from two different panoramic radiography devices, performing protocols with and without applying a lead apron. Methods: A RANDO® full body phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stamford, CT) was equipped with 110 thermoluminescent dosemeters at 55 different sites and set up in two different panoramic radiography devices [SCANORA® three-dimensional (3D) (SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland) and ProMax® 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland)] and exposed. Two different protocols were performed in the two devices. The first protocol was performed without any lead shielding, whereas the phantom was equipped with a standard adult lead apron for the second protocol. Results: A two-tailed paired samples t-test for the SCANORA 3D revealed that there is no difference between the protocol using lead apron shielding (m587.99, s5102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m=87.34, s=107.49), t(54)=20.313,p. >0.05. The same test for the ProMax 3D showed that there is also no difference between the protocol using shielding (m=106.48, s=117.38) and the protocol without shielding (m=107.75, s=114,36), t(54)=0.938, p.>0.05. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no statistically significant differences between a panoramic radiography with or without the use of lead apron shielding.
AB - Objectives: This study investigated the absorbed doses in a full anthropomorphic body phantom from two different panoramic radiography devices, performing protocols with and without applying a lead apron. Methods: A RANDO® full body phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stamford, CT) was equipped with 110 thermoluminescent dosemeters at 55 different sites and set up in two different panoramic radiography devices [SCANORA® three-dimensional (3D) (SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland) and ProMax® 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland)] and exposed. Two different protocols were performed in the two devices. The first protocol was performed without any lead shielding, whereas the phantom was equipped with a standard adult lead apron for the second protocol. Results: A two-tailed paired samples t-test for the SCANORA 3D revealed that there is no difference between the protocol using lead apron shielding (m587.99, s5102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m=87.34, s=107.49), t(54)=20.313,p. >0.05. The same test for the ProMax 3D showed that there is also no difference between the protocol using shielding (m=106.48, s=117.38) and the protocol without shielding (m=107.75, s=114,36), t(54)=0.938, p.>0.05. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no statistically significant differences between a panoramic radiography with or without the use of lead apron shielding.
KW - Dentistry
KW - Panoramic
KW - Radiation protection
KW - Radiography
KW - Thermoluminescent dosimetry
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891879874&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1259/dmfr.20130302
DO - 10.1259/dmfr.20130302
M3 - Article
C2 - 24174012
AN - SCOPUS:84891879874
SN - 0250-832X
VL - 42
JO - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
JF - Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
IS - 10
M1 - 20130302
ER -