IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dose assessment in dental cone-beam computed tomography: Comparison of optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry with Monte Carlo method

Author

Listed:
  • Chena Lee
  • Jeongmin Yoon
  • Sang-Sun Han
  • Ji Yeon Na
  • Jeong-Hee Lee
  • Young Hyun Kim
  • Jae Joon Hwang

Abstract

The variety of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) machines and their applications has rapidly increased in recent years, making the dose evaluation of individual devices an important issue. Patient doses from CBCT were assessed with two different methods: optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, in four different examination modes. Based on an analysis of the measurement process and the obtained values, a recommendation is made regarding which method is more practical and efficient for acquiring the effective dose of CBCT. Twenty-two OSLDs were calibrated and equipped in human phantoms of head and neck organs. They were exposed to radiation from two CBCT units—CS9300 (Carestream Dental LLC, Atlanta, Georgia) and RAYSCAN α+ (Ray Co. Ltd, Hwaseong-si, Korea)—using two different examination modes. The dose recorded using the OSLDs was used to calculate the organ dose and the effective dose for each unit in each examination mode. These values were also calculated using MC software, PCXMC (STUK, Helsinki, Finland). The organ doses and effective doses obtained using both methods were compared for each examination mode of the individual units. The OSLD-measured effective dose value was higher than that obtained using the MC method for each examination mode, except the dual jaw mode of CS9300. The percent difference of the effective dose between the two methods ranged from 4.0% to 14.3%. The dose difference between the methods decreased as the field of view became smaller. The organ dose values varied according to the method, although the overall trend was similar for both methods. The organs showing high doses were mostly consistent for both methods. In this study, the effective dose obtained by OSLD measurements and MC simulations were compared, and both methods were described in detail. As a relatively efficient and easy-to-perform method, we cautiously suggest using MC simulations for dose evaluations in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Chena Lee & Jeongmin Yoon & Sang-Sun Han & Ji Yeon Na & Jeong-Hee Lee & Young Hyun Kim & Jae Joon Hwang, 2020. "Dose assessment in dental cone-beam computed tomography: Comparison of optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry with Monte Carlo method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219103
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219103
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219103&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.