A comprehensive review of the literature on the biological effects from dental X-ray exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Routine dental X-rays are among the most common sources of ionizing radiation exposure for healthy individuals globally, with 300 examinations/1000 individuals/year as documented by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) global survey of medical radiation usage and exposure. Furthermore, in the United States of America, an increased use of dental radiography is evident. However, with the shift from using film to digital image receptors, the dose of radiation per routine examination has decreased. Despite this, there remains public concern of dental X-rays. This continuing concern highlights the need to review the literature on biological and health effects related to exposure, from dental X-rays. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report presents studies investigating biological and health effects related to exposures using dental X-rays in patients and provides a critical evaluation. Relevant studies specific to dental X-rays are reviewed from 1970 and onward with the bulk data in this field resulting from epidemiological and biomonitoring studies. RESULTS: While, most epidemiological studies suggest a possible correlation between head/neck related tumors and exposure to dental X-rays, evidence for causation is lacking. Biomonitoring studies suggest that exposure to low-level radiation such as that of dental radiography may not be a factor in inducing long-term chromosomal damage, but may result in localized cytotoxicity in the irradiated region of the mouth, with no long-term harm. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the total number of studies is low and the majority of the data has been generated from poorly designed experiments. This review will highlight shortcomings that could influence outcomes and provide a more balanced interpretation that could impact the public perception and the level of public concern on the health effects resulting from dental X-rays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".