Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013;42(10):20130302.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20130302. Epub 2013 Oct 30.

Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography

D Rottke  1 , L Grossekettler, K Sawada, P Poxleitner, D Schulze
Affiliations

Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography

D Rottke et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013.

Abstract

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 (m = 87.99, s = 102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m = 87.34, s = 107.49), t(54) = -0.313, 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.

Keywords: dentistry; radiation protection; radiography, panoramic; thermoluminescent dosimetry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Phantom with apron set up in the device
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Horner K. Review article: radiation protection in dental radiology. Br J Radiol 1994; 67: 1041–1049 - PubMed
    1. European Commission Radiation Protection no. 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence-based guidelines. Luxembourg: EC; 2012. Available from: ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/publication/172.pdf
    1. Alderson SW, Lanzl LH, Rollins M, Spira J. An instrumented phantom system for analog computation of treatment plans. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1962; 87: 185–195 - PubMed
    1. Bourgeois M, Wood RE, Pharoah MJ. Reducing transmitted radiation in dental radiography. Health Phys 1992; 62: 546–552 - PubMed
    1. Soh G, Chong YH. Variability of two methods of measuring absorbed dose in dental radiography. Clin Prev Dent 1992; 14: 17–19 - PubMed

MeSH terms