umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Operator safety during the acquisition of intraoral images with a handheld and portable X-ray device
Department of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Hospital Dortmund, Witten/Herdecke, Germany; Digital Diagnostic Center Ltd, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiology, ISSN 0250-832X, E-ISSN 1476-542X, Vol. 47, no 3, article id 20160410Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: The present study aims at investigating different radiation protection issues and dose values while acquiring intraoral images with a handheld X-ray device.

METHODS: An Aribex NOMAD Pro 2™, a RANDO® male head phantom, a consistency testing body, a PTW NOMEX® Multimeter, and a PTW Farmer® Ionization Chamber Type 30,010 were used to investigate: (1) dose area products; (2) the expansion of the control area (CA); (3) the scattering pattern and (4) the potential risk for operators of the X-ray device.

RESULTS: Dose area products at different exposure times were distributed linearly with a high correlation factor (>0.9). At 4000 simulated exposures, the greatest extent of the CA was 42 cm (mean = 16.7 cm, SD = 10.8 cm). The highest occurrence of scattering radiation resulted between the RANDO® phantom and the X-ray device. No scattered radiation was measured at the dorsal part of the phantom or on the operator site of a virtual vertical plane through the focal spot of the X-ray.

CONCLUSIONS: Through this study, we could demonstrate that the application of an Aribex NOMAD Pro 2 device for intraoral imaging does not increase the risk for the operator if the device is controlled according to the manufacturer's specifications. Furthermore, we were able to show that the CA was significantly smaller than specified by European and other international radiation protection standards.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
British Institute of Radiology , 2018. Vol. 47, no 3, article id 20160410
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-154620DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20160410PubMedID: 29319336OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-154620DiVA, id: diva2:1273099
Available from: 2018-12-20 Created: 2018-12-20 Last updated: 2019-01-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rottke, Dennis
In the same journal
Dento-Maxillo-Facial Radiology
Medical and Health SciencesRadiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 39 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf