Occupational and patients effective radiation doses in dental imaging

Ionizing radiation exposure from medical applications is increasing annually worldwide. It was estimated that 325 million dental procedures were performed in the United States. Radiation exposure from dental radiography consists of intraoral, panoramic, and 3D imaging cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Recent studies reported an association between dental imaging procedures and increased cancer probability of brain and thyroid. Previous studies showed that some dental imaging practices exposed patients and staff to unnecessary radiation doses due to incorrect image acquisition and insufficient radiation protection measures. This study aims to (i) measure the occupational and patients doses during dental procedures and (ii) assess the current imaging techniques and radiation protection practices. Two hundred fourteen patients were evaluated for periapical, bitewing, cephalometric, occlusal, and panoramic procedures. Organ equivalent doses were quantified for the breast, eye lens, and thyroid gland during CBCT procedure. Occupational and ambient dose assessment were assessed using calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100(LiF: Mg. Ti). Ambient doses were measure at different locations at the department using TLDs. Patients' radiation doses were quantified using kerma area product (PKA (mGy.cm) and the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK (mGy). Fixed tube voltage (65 kVp) and tube current-time product (7 mAs) were used. The overall mean, sd, and range of patients dose values during intraoral (mGy), panoramic and CBCT examinations were 4.6 ± 0.7 (1.4-7.1), 135 ± 45 (75.2-168.5), and 215 ± 165 (186-2115), respectively. The mean and range of the annual occupational doses (mSv) were 1.4 (0.6-3.7), which below the annual dose limits for radiation workers (20 mSv/y). The study showed that inadequate radiation protection for patients existed in terms of the use of the thyroid shield, the technologist's presence inside the room during radiation exposure. Patients' radiation doses were comparable with the international diagnostic reference level (DRL). Staff education and training in radiation protection aspects are highly recommended.