Dose measurements for dental cone-beam CT: a comparison with MSCT and panoramic imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date there is a lack of published information on appropriate methods to determine patient doses from dental cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) equipment. The goal of this study is to apply and extend the methods recommended in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report 111 for CBCT equipment to characterize dose and effective dose for a range of dental imaging equipment. A protocol derived from the one proposed by Dixon et al (2010 Technical Report 111, American Association of Physicist in Medicine, MD, USA), was applied to dose measurements of multi-slice CT, dental CBCT (small and large fields of view (FOV)) and a dental panoramic system. The computed tomography dose index protocol was also performed on the MSCT to compare both methods. The dose distributions in a cylindrical polymethyl methacrylate phantom were characterized using a thimble ionization chamber and Gafchromic™ film (beam profiles). Gafchromic™ films were used to measure the dose distribution in an anthropomorphic phantom. A method was proposed to extend dose estimates to planes superior and inferior to the central plane. The dose normalized to 100 mAs measured in the center of the phantom for the large FOV dental CBCT (11.4 mGy/100 mAs) is two times lower than that of MSCT (20.7 mGy/100 mAs) for the same FOV, but approximately 15 times higher than for a panoramic system (0.6 mGy/100 mAs). The effective dose per scan (in clinical conditions) found for the dental CBCT are 167.60 ± 3.62, 61.30 ± 3.88 and 92.86 ± 7.76 mSv for the Kodak 9000 (fixed scan length of 3.7 cm), and the iCAT Next Generation for 6 cm and 13 cm scan lengths respectively. The method to extend the dose estimates from the central slice to superior and inferior slices indicates a good agreement between theory and measurement. The Gafchromic™ films provided useful beam profile data and 2D distributions of dose in phantom.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".