Is dosimetry still a necessity in current dental practice?. (30th November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reddy, S S; Rakesh, N; Chauhan, Pallavi; Clint, Joseph Ben; Sharma, Shivani
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiological protection. Volume 35:Number 4(2015:Dec.)
• Page Start: 911
• Page End: 916
• Publication Date: 2015-11-30
• Subjects: personal dosimetery -- monitoring -- dental practice -- digital radiography -- radiation exposure; Radiation -- Safety measures -- Periodicals; Health Physics -- Periodicals; Radiation Monitoring -- Periodicals; Radiation Protection -- Periodicals; Rayonnement -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Fulltext; Internet Resource; Periodical; 363.179905
• DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/35/4/911
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0952-4746

Abstract

Abstract: Today, dentists have a wide range of imaging modalities to choose from, the film based techniques, digital techniques, and the recent introduction of 3D volumetric or cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The inherent design features of the new generation dental x-ray equipment has significantly improved over the years with no evidence of substandard x-ray units in operation. In dental facilities radiological workload is comparatively low, newer radiation equipments and accessories follow safety guidelines and employ better radiation protection measures for the patient and the operator. Dentists' knowledge and expertise in radiation protection measures is good, enabling them to carry out riskfree radiation procedures in their practice. Therefore, the present study is aimed at assessing the need for dosimeters in current dental scenario. 'Is there currently a significant risk from dental radiography to merit the use of personal dosimetery in dental practice.' Dental health professionals (Oral radiologists) and radiographic assistants of fourteen dental colleges in Karnataka state participated in this questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of the following questions—the make, type, year of manufacture of radiographic machines used in their setup, number of radiographs made per day in the institution, type of receptors used, number of personnel at risk for radiation exposure, radiation protection measures used, regular monitoring by personal dosimeters, equivalent dosage readings for the past 12 months and whether the reading of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) for any personnel had exceeded the recommended exposure value in the last 3 years. Dosimetry records of the radiology staff in the last three years shows doses no more than 1.50 mSv per year. The various institutions' dose (person mSv) was in the range of 3.70 mSv–3.90 mSv. Personal monitoring for Dentists can be omitted in the dental colleges since the estimated dose of oral radiologists contributed less than 0.01 mSv to the total average annual effective dose equivalent. Hence personal monitoring services (TLD Badges) for dentists employed in dental colleges should not be made mandatory.