Oral Radiology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 49–55 | Cite as

Absorbed doses reduced by the use of rare-earth intensifying screens in rotational panoramic radiography with constant potential generator

  • Yoshihiko Hayakawa
  • Norio Kobayashi
  • Yuji Kousuge
  • Hisao Fujimori
  • Kouichi Harada
  • Kinya Kuroyanagi
Technical Report


Absorbed doses modified by the use of rare-earth intensifying screens were measured with rotational panoramic radiography. Equipments with the constant potential, Veraview (J.Morita) and PM 2002 CC (Planmeca) was utilized. The optimum exposure settings at each tube voltage were determined by radiography of a Rando® phantom. Absorbed doses to parotid and thyroid glands were measured under the optimum exposure settings by using the Rando® phantom and thermoluminescence dosimeters.

The sensitivity of the rare-earth intesifying screen system increased as the tube voltage bacame higher. Absorbed doses decreased steeply as the tube voltage became higher. The highly sensitive system of the LANEX REGULAR and T-Mat G (Eastman Kodak) reduced the thyroid gland dose to a half at 70 kV in comparison with the regular system of the PX-III (Kasei Optonics) and X-Omat S (Eastman Kodak). This high sensitivity, however, made it impossible to set the optimum tube current at above 70 kV. The another rare-earth system, the TRIMAX 16 and TRIMAX XUD (3M) had a lower sensitivity than the regular system of the PX-III and X-Omat S at below 80 kV. But they had equal sensitivity at the highest tube voltage of 80 kV.

Key Words

Radiography, dental Radiography, panoramic Radiation dosage Screen-film 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1).
    Forsgren, L. and Julin, P.: Radiation dose reduction in panoramic radiography: Orthopantomograph Model OP 3 modified for rare earth intensifying screens.Swed. Dent. J. 6: 225–231, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2).
    Keur, J.J.: A rare earth screen-film system for dental panoramic radiography.Australian Dental Journal 28: 105–108, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3).
    Gratt, B.M., White, S.C., Packard, F.L. and Petersson, A.R.: An evaluation of rare-earth imaging systems in panoramic radiography.Oral Surg. 58: 475–482, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4).
    Hurlburt, C.E. and Coggins, L.J.: Rare earth screens for panoramic radiography.Oral Surg. 57: 451–454, 1984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5).
    Tyndall, D.A. and Washburn, D.B.: Rare-earth filters in panoramic radiography: A means of reducing patient dose without compromising image qualityDentomaxillofac. Radiol. 15: 19–25, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6).
    D'Ambrosio, J.A., Schiff, T.G., McDavid, W.D. and Langland, O.E.: Diagnostic quality versus patient exposure with five panoramic screen-film combinations.Oral Surg. 61: 409–411, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7).
    Aagaard, A. and Sewerin I.: Reduction of body doses in rotational panoramic radiography by means of reduced beam width in combination with rare earth intensifying screens.Scand. J. dent. Res. 94: 530–535, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8).
    McDavid, W.D., Morris, C.R., Tronje, G. and Welander, U.: Resolution of several screen-film combinations in rotational panoramic radiography.Oral Surg. 61: 629–634, 1986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9).
    Ponce, A.Z., McDavid, W.D., Lundeen, R.C. and Morris, C.R.: Adaptation of the Panorex II for use with rare earth screen-film combinations.Oral Surg. 61: 645–648, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10).
    Ponce, A.Z., McDavid, W.D., Lundeen, R.C. and Morris, C.R.: Kodak T-Mat G film in rotational panoramic radiography.Oral Surg. 61: 649–652, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11).
    Reynolds, J., Skucas, J. and Gorski, J.: An evaluation of screen-film speed characteristics.Radiology 118: 711–713, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Thunthy, K.H., Boozer, C.H. and Weinberg, R.: Sensitometric evaluation of rare earth intensifying screen systems.Oral Surg. 59: 102–106, 1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13).
    Forest, D., Deschamps, M., Normandeau, L.: A comparative study of radiation doses received from constant direct current and conventional self rectified panoramic dental x-ray equipment.J. Dent. Que. 18: 9–17, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14).
    Hayakawa, Y., Sakoh, T., Fujimori, H. and Kuroyanagi, K.: Dose reduction to the thyroid gland in intraoral source radiography.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 22: 21–24, 1993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15).
    Antoku, S., Kihara, T., Russell, W.J. and Beach, D.R.: Doses to critical organs from dental radiography.Oral Surg. 41: 251–60, 1976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16).
    Manson-Hing, L.R., Greer, D.F.: Radiation exposure and distribution measurements for three panoramic x-ray machines.Oral Surg. 44: 313–321, 1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17).
    Wall, B.F., Fisher, E.S., Paynter, R., Hudson, A. and Bird, P.D.: Doses to patients from pantomographic and conventional dental radiography.Brit. J. Radiol. 52: 727–34, 1979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18).
    Stenström, B., Julin, P. Richter, S.: Comparison between panoramic radiographic techniques: Part III: Radiation absorbed doses with Status-X® Orthopantomograph® Model OP5, and Panelete®.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 11: 107–116, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19).
    Bartolotta, A., Calenda, E., Calicchia, A. and Indovina, P.L.: Dental orthopantomography: survey of patient dose.Radiology 146: 821–823, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20).
    Nilsson, L., Rohlin, M. and Tapper, K.: Exposure distribution, absorbed doses, and energy imparted for panoramic radiography using Orthopanotomograph model OP 5.Oral Surg. 59: 212–219, 1985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21).
    Stenström, B., Julin, P. and Karlsson, L.: Comparison between panoramic radiographic techniques: Part IV: Absorbed doses and energy imparted from the Orthopantomograph, model OP 10.Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 16: 11–15, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22).
    Underhill, T.E., Chilvarquer, I., Kimura, K., Langlais, R.P., McDavid, W.D., Preece, J.W. and Barnwell, G.: Radiobiologic risk estimation from dental radiology. Part 1. Absorbed doses to critical organs.Oral Surg. 66: 111–120, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23).
    Kassbaum, D.K., Stoller, N.E., McDavid, W.D., Goshorn, B. and Ahrens, C.R.: Absorbed dose determination for tomographic implant assessment techniques.Oral Surg. 73: 502–509, 1992Google Scholar
  24. 24).
    Yamamoto, K., Hayakawa, Y. and Sakoh, T.: Reduction of redundant shadows using new rotational panoramic radiograph “PM 2002 CC”.Bull. Tokyo Dent. Coll. 30: 175–184, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25).
    Wall, B.F. and Kendall, G.M.: Collective doses and risks from dental radiology in Great Britain.Brit. J. Radiol. 56: 511–516, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26).
    Stenström, B., Henrikson, C.O., Karlsson, L. and Sarby, B.: Effective dose equivalent from intraoral radiography.Swed. Dent. J. 10: 95–101, 1986Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Dental Radiology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshihiko Hayakawa
    • 1
  • Norio Kobayashi
    • 1
  • Yuji Kousuge
    • 1
  • Hisao Fujimori
    • 1
  • Kouichi Harada
    • 1
  • Kinya Kuroyanagi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial RadiologyTokyo Dental CollegeChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations