Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics (Oct 2010)

Avaliação de doses referenciais obtidas com exames de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico adquiridos com diferentes tamanhos de voxel Evaluation of referential dosages obtained by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography examinations acquired with different voxel sizes

  • Marianna Guanaes Gomes Torres,
  • Paulo Sérgio Flores Campos,
  • Nilson Pena Neto Segundo,
  • Marlos Ribeiro,
  • Marcus Navarro,
  • Iêda Crusoé-Rebello

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512010000500008
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 5
pp. 42 – 43

Abstract

Read online

OBJETIVO: o objetivo deste estudo reside na avaliação do produto dose-área (DAP) e das doses de entrada na pele (DEP), empregando protocolos com tamanho de voxel diferente, obtidos com o aparelho de Tomografia Computadorizada de Feixe Cônico (TCFC) i-CAT, a fim de determinar melhores parâmetros baseados nos princípios da radioproteção. MÉTODOS: para medição do DEP foi utilizada uma câmara de ionização do tipo lápis, e para o DAP foi utilizado um aparelho PTW. Quatro protocolos foram testados, a saber: (1) 40 seg., voxel de 0,2mm e 46,72mAs; (2) 40 seg., voxel de 0,25mm e 46,72mAs; (3) 20 seg., voxel de 0,3mm e 23,87mAs; (4) 20 seg., voxel de 0,4mm e 23,87mAs. A quilovoltagem permaneceu constante (120KVp). RESULTADOS: detectou-se diferença estatisticamente significativa (pObjectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the dose-area product (DAP) and the entrance skin dose (ESD), using protocols with different voxel sizes, obtained with i-CAT Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), to determine the best parameters based on radioprotection principles. METHODS: A pencil-type ionization chamber was used to measure the ESD and a PTW device was used to measure the DAP. Four protocols were tested: (1) 40s, 0.2 mm voxel and 46.72 mAs; (2) 40s, 0.25 mm voxel and 46.72 mAs; (3) 20s, 0.3 mm voxel and 23.87 mAs; (4) 20s, 0.4 mm voxel and 23.87 mAs. The kilovoltage remained constant (120kVp). RESULTS: A significant statistical difference (p<0.001) was found among the four protocols for both methods of radiation dosage evaluation (DAP and ESD). For DAP evaluation, protocols 2 and 3 presented a statistically significant difference, and it was not possible to detect which of the protocols for ESD evaluation promoted this result. CONCLUSIONS: DAP and ESD are evaluation methods for radiation dose for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, and more studies are necessary to explain such result. The voxel size alone does not affect the radiation dose in CBCT (i-CAT) examinations. The radiation dose for CBCT (i-CAT) examinations is directly related to the exposure time and milliamperes.

Keywords