ABSTRACT
The carcinogenic risks associated with the cephalometric x-ray techniques customarily used in orthodontics and oral surgery have been estimated. Lateral, posteroanterior, 45 degrees oblique, lateral temporomandibular joint tomography, basilar techniques, and commonly-used combinations were examined. Data reported in a previous article on doses absorbed by pituitary (brain), salivary, and thyroid glands were used to calculate increased risk over normal incidence using the BEIR V model. The findings are expressed in a number of graphs. Tables list the estimated percentage increase in carcinomas for several of the most often used cephalometric procedures, and compare these with the more common complete mouth (periapical) and panoramic surveys. The overall conclusion is that responsible use of cephalometric radiology adds very little to the person's carcinogenic burden.
Subject(s)
Cephalometry/adverse effects , Head and Neck Neoplasms/etiology , Models, Statistical , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/epidemiology , Radiography, Dental/adverse effects , Absorption , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Male , Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced/etiology , Pituitary Gland/diagnostic imaging , Pituitary Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pituitary Neoplasms/etiology , Probability , Radiation Dosage , Risk Factors , Salivary Gland Neoplasms/epidemiology , Salivary Gland Neoplasms/etiology , Sialography/adverse effects , Thyroid Gland/diagnostic imaging , Thyroid Neoplasms/epidemiology , Thyroid Neoplasms/etiologyABSTRACT
Absorbed radiation was measured in various craniofacial tissues on an adult phantom (Alderson Rando) when conventional cephalometric radiographic techniques were used. The views examined were lateral, 45 degrees oblique, posteroanterior, lateral temporomandibular joint tomograph, and basilar (submental-vertex). Absorbed radiation was expressed in micrograys for the individual views and for combinations of views as customarily used in orthodontics and oral surgery. These data are compared with findings of contemporary investigators and the magnitude of the doses is compared with those in the literature for periapical and panoramic surveys.
