Absorbed dose of sensitive organs in maxillofacial region by different radiographic techniques: Panoramic, Waters, Caldwell and cone-beam computed tomography

Seyed Hosein Hoseini-Zarch, Mohammad Taghi Bahreyni, Fatemeh Akbari, Nasim Khaki, Mona Poorazad


BACKGROUND AND AIM: Due to increasing use of X-rays in diagnosis and treatment of diseases, this study aimed to measure and compares the absorbed dose in a number of sensitive organs of head and neck in different radiographic techniques.

METHODS: Thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD) and a male equivalent RANDO phantom were used to measure the absorbed dose in organs. The dosimeters were set in certain sites of phantom related to eye, parotid, thyroid gland, occipital area and temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Panoramic and Caldwell techniques with two different exposure conditions as well as Waters technique with three different exposure conditions were performed. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was applied in low and normal resolutions with different field of view (FOV), and the mean absorbed dose was calculated and compared by the dosimeters related to each of the organs.

RESULTS: The panoramic imaging technique revealed the lowest dose for the eyes, but interestingly higher doses for the parotid gland and the occipital area. In total, Waters and Caldwell imaging techniques indicated that the occipital area and the parotid gland absorbed a higher dose than other organs. In the majority of CBCT scans the parotid region received the highest dose. However, during sinus CBCT (both in low-dose and high-dose modes), the TMJ and eye areas absorbed the highest dose. Investigation of the use of thyroid shield on the absorbed dose in this organ in CBCT showed an average 22% reduction in dose.

CONCLUSION: In total, panoramic, Waters and Caldwell imaging techniques indicated that the occipital area and the parotid gland absorbed a higher dose than other organs. In the majority of CBCT scans, the parotid region received the highest dose.


Radiation Dosimeters; Absorption; Radiation; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Panoramic Radiography

Full Text:



Dowsett DJ, Dowsett D, Kenny PA, Johnston RE. The physics of diagnostic imaging. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1998. p. 42-8.

White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology-E-Book: Principles and interpretation. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. p. 24-6.

Budzanowski M, Olko P, Ryba E, Woznicka U. A system for rapid large-area monitoring of gamma dose rates in the environment based on MCP-N (LiF:Mg,Cu,P) TL detectors. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2002; 101(1-4): 205-9.

Gamboa-deBuen I, Buenfil AE, Ruiz CG, Rodriguez-Villafuerte M, Flores A, Brandan ME. Thermoluminescent response and relative efficiency of TLD-100 exposed to low-energy x-rays. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43(8): 2073-83.

Hidalgo A, Davies J, Horner K, Theodorakou C. Effectiveness of thyroid gland shielding in dental CBCT using a paediatric anthropomorphic phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44(3): 20140285.

Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: A radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133(5): 640-5.

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(2): 267-71.

Christiansen EL, Moore RJ, Thompson JR, Hasso AN, Hinshaw DB Jr. Radiation dose in radiography, CT, and arthrography of the temporomandibular joint. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 148(1): 107-9.

Nadas S, Duvoisin B, Raimondi S, Schnyder P. Radiation doses delivered to the critical organs during radiological studies of chronic sinusitis. Comparison between TDM and standard radiographies. J Radiol 1994; 75(4): 217-9.

Jadu F, Yaffe MJ, Lam EW. A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010; 39(5): 257-63.

Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110(6): 770-6.

Garcia Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Grundler K, Visser H, Hirsch E. Effective dosages for recording Veraviewepocs dental panoramic images: Analog film, digital, and panoramic scout for CBCT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106(4): 571-7.

Palomo JM, Rao PS, Hans MG. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105(6): 773-82.

Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: The impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139(9): 1237-43.

Walker C, van der Putten W. Patient dosimetry and a novel approach to establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels in dental radiology. Phys Med 2012; 28(1): 7-12.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Oral Health and Oral Epidemiology

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.