Calculation of patient effective dose and scattered dose for dental mobile fluoroscopic equipment: application of the Monte Carlo simulation

Comparison of air dose and operator exposure from portable X-ray units

This study was aimed at investigating and comparing exposure dose of workers and the surrounding workers. In addition, worker's exposure was also measure about lens and finger. Four intraoral portable X-ray units were evaluated. The stray radiations were measured using Pitman 37D and ionization chamber (Pitman). MyDosemini (ALOKA) was used for measurement of the finger exposure dose. Without the shield became high in anterior 0.5 m. Comparing the air dose for the four models used in this study showed a high tendency for the two NOMAD models. And using the shields, the images could be taken 4.6 times of the baseline at a maximum and 3.6 times on average. The finger radiation exposure dose was low with both of the NOMAD models, with no significant difference found. By setting the baseline value without a shield, finger radiation exposure when using a shield was lower than the detection limit for the D3000, and was reduced by approximately 94-96% for other three models. All models can photograph around 100 bodies, so it is considered that it is not necessary to switch out the operator considering the operation limit. But even if it does not reach the operation limit, the stochastic effects of radiation exposure can be increased as well as the deterministic effects of the operation limit. The operator and the surrounding workers seek to protect themselves. It is important to perform exposure management that takes into account the stochastic effects to the operator and the surrounding workers.

Assessment of the radiological safety of a Genoray portable dental X-ray unit

OBJECTIVES

The portable dental radiographic systems are generally used in emergency situations (e.g. during natural disasters) for disabled/aged patients and in patient rooms. This study assesses the output exposure of a portable dental radiographic system measured using thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs).

METHODS

Occupational exposure of the operator was determined when the portable dental unit was used for mandibular and maxillary teeth exposure.

RESULTS

The doses of some critical organs of an operator were measured using TLDs implanted within the Rando phantom.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the annual organ dose limits, the eye lens dose limit is the main factor determining the frequency of system application.