Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Risk assessment from bitewing radiography.

X L Velders1, J van Aken, P F van der Stelt

  • 1Department of Oral Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry, Amsterdam.

Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology
|November 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

From pixel to image analysis.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2020
Same author

[Not Available].

Nederlands tijdschrift voor tandheelkunde·2016
Same author

[Panoramic radiographs in dental diagnostics].

Nederlands tijdschrift voor tandheelkunde·2016
Same author

[Cone beam computed tomography: is more also better?].

Nederlands tijdschrift voor tandheelkunde·2016
Same author

Assessment of Random Error in Phantom Dosimetry with the Use of Error Simulation in Statistical Software.

BioMed research international·2016
Same author

[X-ray diagnostics in dentistry].

Nederlands tijdschrift voor tandheelkunde·2015
Same journal

Image sharpening improves the visibility of reference points on low-dose lateral cephalometric radiographs: a phantom study.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2026
Same journal

AI-Based Detection of Proximal Caries Across Radiographic Modalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2026
Same journal

Cranial Base Characteristics in Adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnoea and Matched Controls: A Retrospective CBCT Study.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2026
Same journal

Dual-Circle: a new way of assessing Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc position at coronal MRI.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2026
Same journal

Quantification of Supracrestal Tissue Attachment Using High-Frequency Ultrasound.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2026
Same journal

Radiological-pathological correlation of tumour size and depth of invasion of oral squamous cell carcinoma using Dual-Energy CT in comparison to MRI and the impact on T-stage.

Dento maxillo facial radiology·2026
See all related articles

This study estimated radiation doses from bitewing radiography using ICRP 26 and ICRP 60 recommendations. Newer guidelines (ICRP 60) suggest higher stochastic effect probabilities but similar fatal cancer risks compared to older ones.

Area of Science:

  • Radiological Sciences
  • Medical Physics
  • Public Health

Background:

  • Dental radiography, specifically bitewing radiography, is a common diagnostic tool.
  • Radiation dose estimation is crucial for patient safety and risk assessment in medical imaging.
  • International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) guidelines (ICRP 26 and ICRP 60) provide frameworks for dose calculation and risk assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To estimate the effective dose equivalent and effective dose from bitewing radiography using different X-ray equipment and exposure conditions.
  • To compare dose estimations and associated stochastic effect probabilities based on ICRP 26 (1977) and ICRP 60 (1990) recommendations.

Main Methods:

  • Dose measurements were performed on an Alderson Rando phantom using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD-100 ribbons).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Effective dose equivalent (ICRP 26) and effective dose (ICRP 60) were calculated considering salivary glands and brain as remainder organs.
  • Stochastic effect probabilities, including fatal cancer induction, were calculated using nominal probability coefficients from both ICRP 26 and ICRP 60.

    • Main Results:

    • Effective dose equivalents ranged from 2 to 11 microSv (ICRP 26) and effective doses from 1 to 4 microSv (ICRP 60) depending on the X-ray unit and cone type.
    • The maximum probability of stochastic effects was calculated as 0.18 x 10(-6) (ICRP 26) and 0.25-0.31 x 10(-6) (ICRP 60).
    • The probability of fatal cancer induction was of the same order of magnitude for both ICRP recommendations.

    Conclusions:

    • Bitewing radiography equipment and exposure settings significantly influence patient radiation dose.
    • ICRP 60 recommendations lead to a nearly twofold higher calculated probability of total stochastic effects compared to ICRP 26.
    • While total stochastic effect probabilities differ, the estimated risk of fatal cancer induction remains comparable between the two ICRP guideline versions.