Exploring the useful exposure range limits of three intraoral image receptors for various tube potential, tube current and exposure time settings

Elli Katsoni, Ioannis A. Tsalafoutas, Panagiotis Gritzalis, Evripides Stefanou, Evangelos Georgiou, Emmanouel Yakoumakis

.

DOI: 10.4236/health.2011.35051                

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the useful exposure range limits of three intraoral image receptors of different technology when exposed to different X-ray beam spectra, dose and dose rate levels. Study Design: A dental X-ray unit offering a wide range of tube potential, tube current and exposure time settings was used to expose a dental quality control phantom. The receptors that were used to capture the radiographic images of the phantom were: the Kodak Insight, the Kodak RVG-6000 and the Duerr Vistascan system. The images that were produced over a wide range of exposure factor settings were evaluated in terms of diagnostic quality by three experienced radiologists. Results: The number of images with acceptable diagnostic quality was in total 1257; 310 with Insight, 331 with RVG 6000 and 616 with Vistascan. At 60 kV, diagnosable images were produced with doses ranging from 0.44-1.56 mGy for the Insight film 0.44-2.82 mGy for the RVG 6000 and 0.22-4.93 mGy for the Vistascan system. At 70 kV, the respective ranges were 0.39-1.28 mGy for the Insight film 0.31-2.55 mGy for the RVG6000 and 0.30-3.46 mGy for the Vistascan system. Conclusions: The Vistascan exhibited the widest useful exposure range and required the least exposure to produce a diagnosable image at almost all tube potential settings. The RVG 6000 exhibited a slightly wider useful exposure range than the Insight film, with almost the same dose requirements especially in higher Kv settings.

Keywords

Radiography, Dental, Digital; Dosage

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000) Sources and effect of ionizing radiation. Report, 1, UNSCEAR publications.
[2]	European Union. (1997) Council Directive 97/43 Euratom, on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposures, and repealing Directive 84/466 Euratom. Official journal of the European Communities, Legislation 180, 22.
[3]	Kitagawa, H. and Farman, A.G. (2004) Effect of beam energy and filtration on the signal-to-noise ratio of the Dexis intraoral X-ray detector. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 33, 21-24. doi:10.1259/dmfr/26493631
[4]	Wenzel, A. (2006) A review of dentists’ use of digital radiography and caries diagnosis with digital systems. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 35, 307-314. doi:10.1259/dmfr/64693712
[5]	Hellen-Halme, K. (2007) Quality aspects of digital radiography in general dental practice. Swedish Dental Journal. Supplement, 184, 9-60.
[6]	Cowen, A.R., Kengyelics, S.M. and Davies, A.G. (2008) Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clinical Radiology, 63, 487-498. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.10.014
[7]	Hintze, H. (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of two software modalities for detection of caries lesions in digital radiographs from four dental systems. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 35, 78-82. doi:10.1259/dmfr/50356588
[8]	Yakoumakis, E.N., Tierris, C.E., Stefanou, E.P., Phanourakis, I.G. and Proukakis. C.C. (2001) Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 91, 362-368. doi:10.1067/moe.2001.111940
[9]	Ang, D.B., Angelopoulos, C. and Katz, J.O. (2006) How does signal fade on photo-stimulable storage phosphor imaging plates when scanned with a delay and what is the effect on image quality? Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 102, 673-679. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.11.002
[10]	Ramamurthy, R., Canning, C.F., Scheetz, J.P. and Farman, A.G. (2004) Impact of ambient lighting intensity and duration on the signal-to-noise ratio of images from photostimulable phosphor plates processed using DenOptix and ScanX systems. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 33, 307-311. doi:10.1259/dmfr/91373164
[11]	Parsons, D.M., Kim, Y. and Haynor, D.R. (1995) Quality control of cathode-ray tube monitors for medical imaging using a simple photometer. Journal of Digital Imaging, 8, 10-20. doi:10.1007/BF03168051
[12]	Jervis, S.E. and Brettle, D.S. A practical approach to soft-copy display consistency for PC-based review workstations. The British Journal of Radiology, 2003, 76, 648-652. doi:10.1259/bjr/25693100
[13]	Berkhout, W.E.R., Beuger, D.A., Sanderink, G.C.H. and Stelt, van der P.F. (2004) The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: Dose reduction or risk of overexposure? Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 33, 1-5. doi:10.1259/dmfr/40677472
[14]	Borg, E. and Grondahl, H.G. (1996) On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 25, 82-88.
[15]	Borg, E., Attaelmanan, A. and Grondahl, H.G. (2000) Image plate systems differ in physical performance. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 89, 118-124. doi:10.1016/S1079-2104(00)80026-8
[16]	Farman, A.G. and Farman, T.T. (2005) A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 99, 485-489. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.002
[17]	Kitagawa, H., Farman, A.G., Scheetz, J.P., Brown, W.P., Lewis, J., Benefiel, M., et al. (2000) Comparison of three intra-oral storage phosphor systems using subjective image quality. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 29, 272-276. doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600532
[18]	Willis, C.E. (2004) Strategies for dose reduction in ordinary radiographic examinations using CR and DR. Pediatric Radiology, 34, Supplement 3, S196-200, discussion, S34-41.
[19]	Bhaskaran, V., Qualtrough, A.J.E., Rushton, V.E., Worthington, H.V. and Horner, K. (2005) A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics. International Endodontic Journal, 38, 645-652. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00998.x
[20]	Hayakawa, Y., Shibuya, H., Ota, Y. and Kuroyanagi, K. (1997) Radiation dosage reduction in general dental practice using digital intraoral radiographic systems. The Bulletin of Tokyo Dental College, 38, 21-25.
[21]	Yoshiura, K., Welander, U., McDavid, W.D., Li, G., Shi, X.Q., Nakayama, E., et al. (2004) Comparison of the psychophysical properties of various intraoral film and digital systems by means of the perceptibility curve test. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 33, 98-102. doi:10.1259/dmfr/29102849
[22]	Radiation Protection (2004) European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology: The safe use of radiographs in dental practice. 136.
[23]	Syriopoulos, K., Velders, X.L., Stelt, van der P.F., Ginkel, van F.C. and Tsiklakis, K. (1998) Mail survey of dental radiographic techniques and radiation doses in Greece. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 27, 321-328. doi:10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600385
[24]	Hatziioannou, K., Psarouli, E., Papanastassiou, E., Bousbouras, P., Kodona, H., Kimoundri, O., et al. (2005) Quality control and diagnostic reference levels in intraoral dental radiographic facilities. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 34, 304-307. doi:10.1259/dmfr/38802780
[25]	Gonzalez, L. and Moro, J. (2007) Patient radiation dose management in dental facilities according to the X-ray focal distance and the image receptor type. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 36, 282-284. doi:10.1259/dmfr/67494525