[ RadSafe ] Myth or Fact? (Dental dose)
Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us
Fri Aug 25 10:33:14 CDT 2006
Ahh.. Another ICRP et al. success, requiring the purchase of more and
more (and ever more costly) machines. This is ICRP's mission since it
was formed by the radiologists in 1928, when UK machine-makers were
complaining that the UK radiologists were buying lower cost German
machines.
Regards, Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Robert Atkinson
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 5:11 AM
> To: yhayaka at tdc.ac.jp; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Myth or Fact? (Dental dose)
>
>
> Hi,
> In the UK the use of 50kV inter-oral X-Ray sets was phased out from
> about 1990 with a ban from 2001 (some special exceptions), along with
> other measures to reduce the dose. These include adjustable
> output and a
> minimum focus to skin distance of 200mm.
>
> See <
> http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/documents_of_nrpb
> /abstracts
> /absd5-3.htm >
>
> Regards,
> Robert Atkinson.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Yoshihiko Hayakawa
> Sent: 25 August 2006 09:30
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Myth or Fact? (Dental dose)
>
> Dear RADSAFE subscribers,
>
> I think that the entrance skin dose of 4.71 mGy is slightly high.
>
> There are at least three recent survey reports as follows;
> UK survey: Napier, I.D. Reference doses for dental radiography.
> British Dental Journal, 1999; 186: 392-396.
> US survey: Suleiman, O.H. et al. Radiographic trends of dental
> offices and dental schools.
> Journal of American Dental Association, 1999; 130: 1104-1110.
> Spain survey: Gonzalez, L, et al. Reference doses in dental
> radiodiagnostic facilities.
> The British Journal of Radiology, 2001; 74: 153-156.
>
> UK and US survey reports are cited by the UNSCEAR2000 Report.
>
> UK survey: The average entrance dose was 3.3 mGy, which included
> the data at lower kV sets (45-55 kV). The average obtained at
> kV sets commonly used (60-70 kV) was 2.2 mGy. The report
> included much higher doses which I can not believe. The highest
> at 60-70 kV sets was 20.5 mGy...
> (Many years ago a professor in Sweden told me that the operation
> at less than 60 kV is illegal in Sweden.)
> US survey: Mean entrance air kerma values ranged approx. between
> 1 mGy and 2 mGy. Sometimes X-ray equipments were operated at
> higher kV settings in the United States.
> Spain survey: The mean value of skin doses was 2.89 mGy.
>
> If measurements are carried out at my school now, average entrance
> doses distribute approx. between 1 mGy and 2 mGy at 60-70 kV
> settings.
>
> - - - - - -
> The record of dental doses in the 20th century was described by
> S.C. White, UCLA, in 1992 as follows;
> White SC. 1992 assessment of radiation risk from dental
> radiography.
> Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 1992 Aug; 21(3):118-26.
>
> Based on White's report, I can describe, "Doses with a single
> dental exposure (bitewing/intraoral radiography) are equivalent
> to between approx. 7 hours and 1 day background exposure.
>
> - - - - - -
> A reasonable estimate in my opinion of the effective dose from
> a single dental (bitewing/intraoral) radiography ranges between
> 1 to 5 microSv (0.1 to 0.5 mrem). Another estimate in my opinion
> of the effective dose from the full mouth survey ranges between
> 10 to 50 microSv (1 to 5 mrem).
>
> I agree the statement that in Europe a skilled dentist (or his
> technician) with state-of-the-art equipment will expose you to
> about 0.01 mSv effective dose per examination. But in a recent
> decade some sophisticated equipments have become world-wide
> available.
>
> Now it can be said in my opinion, "Every year, the average
> globe citizen is exposed to natural radiation equal to about
> 720-3,600 dental X-rays."
>
> Sincerely.
> Yoshihiko Hayakawa
> Tokyo Dental College
> mailto:yhayaka at tdc.ac.jp
>
> Peter Thomas wrote:
>
> > New Zealand's NRL produced a report 15 years ago based on TLD
> > measurements in a RANDO phantom to get the ratio of organ
> doses to the
> > entrance skin dose for a couple of dental exams. The
> following is for
> a
> > single bitewing film at 60kV based on an entrance skin dose of 4.71
> mGy
> > (471 mrad). It's an old report but I'd expect similar results under
> > today's conditions given the same entrance skin dose.
> >
> > Entrance skin 4.71 mGy
> > Ovaries 0.0000047 mGy
> > Testes 0.00044 mGy
> > Bone (in head/neck) 0.019 mGy
> > Breast 0.00196 mGy
> > Lungs 0.00106 mGy
> > Thyroid 0.0215 mGy
> > Brain 0.0094 mGy
> > Sinuses 0.426 mGy
> > Salivary Glands 0.275 mGy
> > Pharynx 0.327 mGy
> > Larynx 0.048 mGy
> > Liver 0.00011 mGy
> > Stomach 0.000052 mGy
> > Kidneys 0.000033 mGy
> > Small Intestine 0.000014 mGy
> > Eyeballs 0.021 mGy
> >
> > The main contributors to the effective dose are the dose to the
> thyroid
> > and the dose to the salivary glands (0.025 weighting factor under
> ICRP60
> > rules where a remainder tissue has a higher does than any of the
> tissues
> > with individual weighting factors). The skin dose drops by a factor
> of
> > 600 due to the ratio of the irradiated area to that of the
> whole skin.
> > The bone dose gets mangled a bit by apportioning between
> bone surface
> > and bone marrow, enhancement factors and averaging over the
> whole body
> > and ends up contributing about 0.0005 mSv to the effective dose
> >
> > Thyroid 0.05 x 0.02146 = 0.001 mSv
> > Salivary Glands 0.025 x 0.275 = 0.007 mSv
> >
> > Effective Dose = 0.008 mSv (about 10 microSv or 1 mrem)
> >
> > Apologies for writing a lot of zeros. I didn't want to
> have to write
> > 'micro' everywhere or cause confusion about what units I was using.
> > Hope I haven't made a transcription error. In the original
> experiment
> > they set up an x-ray unit in its own room with a timer so they could
> > deliver the equivalent of about 10000 (ten thousand)
> exposures to poor
> > old RANDO. The entrance skin dosimeters were removed
> part-way through
> > so the dose wouldn't be above 10 Gy and the final results
> were scaled
> > appropriately. This is how they claim to be able to measure ratios
> down
> > to about 1 in a million (ovaries/entrance surface).
> >
> > The original report is:
> > B D P Williamson, NRL 1990/6
> >
> > End result (apologies for the bandwidth): 10 microSv or 1 mrem
> > (effective dose) is a reasonable estimate in my opinion of the dose
> from
> > a single dental x-ray.
> >
> > Peter Thomas
> > Medical Physics Section
> > ARPANSA
> >
> >
> **********************************************************************
> > Important: This email (including any attachments) is
> intended only for
> the use of the
> > addressee and may contain confidential and / or privileged
> information. If you are not the intended addressee, you are
> prohibited
> from relaying on, distributing, disclosing, copying or
> > in any other way using any information in this email. If you have
> received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> erase all copies.
> > Any opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily held or
> authorised by Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear
> Safety Agency
> (ARPANSA).
> > Whilst ARPANSA has taken all reasonable steps to ensure
> this is email
> is virus free,
> > it accepts no responsibility and makes no warranty. The recipient
> should take its own steps to ensure
> > there is no virus and bears full responsibility for any use.
> >
> > Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency
> >
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the
> individual and not necessarily Genetix Ltd (Genetix) or any
> company associated with it. This email and any files
> transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use
> of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
> recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
> email in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this email in error please notify Genetix
> by telephone on +44 (0)1425 624600.
>
>
> The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of
> this message is strictly forbidden. This mail and any
> attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving
> the Genetix network. Genetix will not be liable for direct,
> special, indirect or consequential damages as a result of any
> virus being passed on, or arising from alteration of the
> contents of this message by a third party.
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
> settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list