Radiology

Author(s):  
Luke Cascarini ◽  
Clare Schilling ◽  
Ben Gurney ◽  
Peter Brennan

Guidelines for dental radiology 40 Dental radiography 42 Panoramic radiography 46 Facial and skull radiography 48 Ultrasonography 50 CT and cone beam CT 52 MRI and nuclear imaging 56 Sialography 57 • Although the radiation doses are generally quite low, the same rules apply as with other radiology and are controlled by IRMER (Ionizing Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (2000))....

Author(s):  
Luke Cascarini ◽  
Clare Schilling ◽  
Ben Gurney ◽  
Peter Brennan

This chapter discusses radiology in oral and maxillofacial surgery, including Guidelines for dental radiology, Dental radiography, Panoramic radiography, Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography (CT), Cone beam CT, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Nuclear medicine imaging and Sialography


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
Mioara Decusară ◽  
◽  
Cerasella-Dorina Şincar ◽  
Alexandru Nicolau ◽  
Teodora Denisa Gheorghi ◽  
...  

Within a century, dental radiology “suffered” transformation, beginning with periapical radiographs, cephalograms and panoramic radiography and continuing with digital imaging and cone beam computed tomography. In contemporary dental practice is importantant to choose the type of radiographic investigation in order to achieve a complete and accurate diagnosis, so necessary for determining the treatment plan for patients with dental-maxillary abnormalities. We conducted a comparative study between conventional radiographic investigation (periapical radiographs, panoramic radiography) and cone beam computed tomography in patients with malocclusions. The costs and radiation doses are low to the classic X-rays, but the diagnosis is given by the two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional dental-maxillary pathologies. Cone Beam CT scans were relatively high in cost and in radiation doses, but provided three-dimensional images and anatomic and radiological data of superior quality to the classics.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0015
Author(s):  
Daniel Bohl ◽  
Blaine Manning ◽  
George Holmes ◽  
Simon Lee ◽  
Johnny Lin ◽  
...  

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Foot and ankle surgeons routinely prescribe diagnostic imaging that exposes patients to potentially harmful ionizing radiation. The purpose of this study is to characterize patients’ knowledge regarding radiation exposure associated with common forms of foot and ankle imaging. Methods: A survey was administered to all new patients prior to their first foot and ankle clinic appointments. Patients were asked to compare the amount of harmful radiation associated with chest x-rays to that associated with various types of foot and ankle imaging. Results were tabulated and compared to actual values of radiation exposure from the published literature. Results: A total of 890 patients were invited to participate, of whom 791 (88.9%) completed the survey. The majority of patients believed that a foot x-ray, an ankle x-ray, a “low dose” CT scan of the foot and ankle (alluding to cone-beam CT), and a traditional CT scan of the foot and ankle all contain similar amounts of harmful ionizing radiation to a chest x-ray (Table 1). This is in contrast to the published literature, which suggests that foot x-rays, ankle x-rays, cone beam CT scans of the foot and ankle, and traditional CT scans of the foot and ankle expose patients to 0.006, 0.006, 0.127, and 0.833 chest x-rays worth of radiation. Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that patients greatly over-estimate the amount of harmful ionizing radiation associated with plain film and cone-beam CT scans of the foot and ankle. Interestingly, their estimates of radiation associated with traditional CT scans of the foot and ankle were relatively accurate. Results suggest that patients may benefit from increased counseling by surgeons regarding the relatively low risk of radiation exposure associated with plain film and cone-beam CT imaging of the foot and ankle.


2013 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 1391-1398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Hauge Matzen ◽  
Jennifer Christensen ◽  
Hanne Hintze ◽  
Søren Schou ◽  
Ann Wenzel

2009 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad A. Momin ◽  
Kiyoshi Okochi ◽  
Hiroshi Watanabe ◽  
Akiko Imaizumi ◽  
Ken Omura ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 20130439 ◽  
Author(s):  
H S Shin ◽  
K C Nam ◽  
H Park ◽  
H U Choi ◽  
H Y Kim ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 132 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kim ◽  
T. T. Yoshizumi ◽  
G. Toncheva ◽  
S. Yoo ◽  
F.-F. Yin

Author(s):  
J. Muinelo-Lorenzo ◽  
JA. Suarez-Quintanilla ◽  
A. Fernandez-Alonso ◽  
J. Varela-Mallou ◽  
MM. Suarez-Cunqueiro

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Ndegwa ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
Melissa Severn ◽  
Caitlyn Ford

The objective of this Environmental Scan was to determine how cone beam CT (CBCT) is being used in Canada, to identify the types of professionals conducting CBCT exams, and to identify the training requirements for CBCT operators. This scan was informed by a literature search and survey of a sample representation from various clinical settings across Canada. Survey responses were received from Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Alberta. More than a third of responses were received from dentists in Ontario. Ionizing radiation has been shown to be a risk factor for the development of malignancy. Since CBCT delivers a higher dose of radiation compared to conventional 2-D imaging, it is important to ensure that the level of exposure to radiation is as low as possible. Based on responses from the survey, CBCT scans appear to be most commonly being used for dental implantology planning in adults. CBCT also appears to be commonly used for detection of impacted teeth, detection of oral and facial cysts, tumours, and endodontic imaging in adults. Survey feedback suggests that CBCT is rarely used in children, who are the most sensitive to the effects of ionizing radiation. With the exception of 1 respondent, survey feedback suggested that CBCT is not typically being used for infants and children younger than the age of 5. Respondents rarely used CBCT for children aged 5 to 9 years. The most common procedures used in children 5 years to 17 years of age appear to be for the detection of impacted teeth and the detection of oral and facial cysts, and tumours. Across all age groups, respondents rarely used CBCT for caries (tooth decay) detection, gum disease detection, nasal septum imaging, and cleft palate imaging. No respondents reported using CBCT for plastic surgery, inner ear imaging, or skull and cranial imaging; however, this may be because of the responses being primarily from dentists. A wide range of radiation dose levels associated with CBCT use were reported in the survey, depending on the age group, specific procedure, and the radiation dose metric used. Educational provisions in place for CBCT operators to ensure safety and technical competence differs between the provinces, with some taking more structured approaches than others. The health professionals allowed to operate CBCT scanners also vary between provinces. Based on the survey results, dentists made up the bulk of health professionals currently conducting CBCT scans; however, dentists were also the most well-represented among survey respondents, which may have influenced this result. Several CBCT scanner models are currently being used in Canada. Most respondents indicated that CBCT scanners have imaging pre-sets that they use for the procedures they perform. Approximately half of respondents indicated that they have also defined their own imaging parameters for some procedures. Most of the CBCT systems being used include exposure tables, which the majority of respondents found easy to understand.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document