Health  Vol.3 No.5 , May 2011
Exploring the useful exposure range limits of three intraoral image receptors for various tube potential, tube current and exposure time settings
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.
Cite this paper: nullKatsoni, E. , Tsalafoutas, I. , Gritzalis, P. , Stefanou, E. , Georgiou, E. and Yakoumakis, E. (2011) Exploring the useful exposure range limits of three intraoral image receptors for various tube potential, tube current and exposure time settings. Health, 3, 292-299. doi: 10.4236/health.2011.35051.

[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