Keywords:
Not applicable, Retrospective, Quality assurance, Dosimetric comparison, Radiation safety, Dosimetry, Audit and standards, Digital radiography, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Professional issues, Management, Physics in Medical Imaging
Authors:
T. De Bondt1, O. Demat2, A. Jacobs3, B. Manche2, H. Bosmans3; 1Antwerp/BE, 2Vilvoorde/BE, 3Leuven/BE
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-00205
Results
As can be appreciated in Figure 1, IAK for intraoral radiography was significantly lower for digital imaging than for film. The median dose resp. P75 for the maxillary molar was 1.0 mGy, resp. 1.4 mGy for digital systems and 1.6 mGy resp. 2.1 mGy for film systems.
For panoramic systems, depicted in Figure 2, the median DAP was 6.9 cGy.cm², and the P75 was 9.6 cGy.cm².A small second peak in the distribution can be noted around 9 cGy.cm². This can be caused by either or a combination of the following factors: 1/ Higher dose film-imaging systems peak at this point. 2/ Several types of new panoramic systems have relatively wide (>5mm) beamwidths, which increased the measured DAP.
Finally for cephalometric systems the median DAP was 2.0 cGy.cm² and the P75 was 3.3 cGy.cm². Again a second peak in the distribution (at 3,5 cGy/cm²) is measured, which could be due to the underlying film-type systems. However in this case we argue that there is heterogeneity in the histogram because of the difference in radiation doses of moving-slit and static systems.
We propose the P75 values presented in this study as national DRL.