Top

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

Published in:

01-08-2020 | Digital Volume Tomography | Systematic Review

Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review

Authors: J. W. G. Van Acker, N. S. Pauwels, R. G. E. C. Cauwels, S. Rajasekharan

Published in: European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry | Issue 4/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of all radioprotective measures in underage patients who undergo a dental radiodiagnostic examination.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or cluster trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case–control studies and comparative in vitro research. These studies examined the healthy underage human population (below 18 years) undergoing a dental radiodiagnostic examination. All radioprotective measures were included except for justification as an intervention. The primary outcomes were in vivo mortality and morbidity. Some surrogate or indirect outcomes such as in vitro effective dose and organ absorbed doses were also accepted. Secondary outcomes with regards to image quality and therapeutic value were also analysed.

Results

Eighteen papers were eligible for implementation. Fifteen studies underwent narrative synthesis. Regression analysis was performed on three studies.

Conclusion

The following radioprotective measures can reduce the exposure dose. For lateral cephalometry: collimation, filtration, the fastest receptor type and circumstantial thyroid shielding. For oblique lateral radiographs: the shortest exposure time, a smaller horizontal angulation, a longer focus to skin distance. For intraoral radiography: rectangular collimation, the fastest image receptor speed and thyroid shielding when the thyroid gland is in line of or very close to the primary beam. For panoramic radiographs: collimation, the fastest receptor type and the use of automatic exposure control (AEC) or manual adjustment of intensity. For cone-beam computed tomography: collimation, the largest voxels size in relation to the treatment need, change in image settings such as ultra-low dose settings, shorter exposure time, a lower amount of projections, lower beam intensity, reduction of the potential, use of a thyroid shield except in two situations and the use of AEC. All of the changes in exposure parameters should be performed while maintaining a sufficient therapeutic value on an individual and indication-based level.

Available only for authorised users

Al Najjar A, Colosi D, Dauer LT, Prins R, Patchell G, Branets I, et al. Comparison of adult and child radiation equivalent doses from 2 dental cone-beam computed tomography units. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(6):784–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.01.013.CrossRefPubMed

Alcaraz M, Garcia-Vera MC, Bravo LA, Martinez-Beneyto Y, Armero D, Morant JJ, et al. Collimator with filtration compensator: clinical adaptation to meet European Union recommendation 4F on radiological protection for dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38(6):413–20. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15580890.CrossRefPubMed

Aps JK. Cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: overview of recent literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2013a;14(3):131–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0029-4.CrossRefPubMed

Aps JK. Three-dimensional imaging in paediatric dentistry: a must-have or you’re not up-to-date? Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2013b;14(3):129–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0034-7.CrossRefPubMed

Aps JK. To beam or not to beam: that is the question. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013c;42(2):20120375. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120375.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Aps JK, Scott JM. Oblique lateral radiographs and bitewings; estimation of organ doses in head and neck region with Monte Carlo calculations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(6):20130419. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130419.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999;28(4):245–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600448.CrossRefPubMed

Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Van der Stelt PF. Does digital radiography increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32(2):124–7. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/97410196.CrossRefPubMed

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–3. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brasil DM, Pauwels R, Coucke W, Haiter-Neto F, Jacobs R. Image quality optimization of narrow detector dental computed tomography for paediatric patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190032.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):289–96. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289.CrossRef

Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(24):13761–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2235592100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Crane GD, Abbott PV. Radiation shielding in dentistry: an update. Aust Dent J. 2016;61(3):277–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12389.CrossRefPubMed

Dauer LT, Branets I, Stabulas-Savage J, Quinn B, Miodownik D, Dauer ZL, et al. Optimising radiographic bitewing examination to adult and juvenile patients through the use of anthropomorphic phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2014;158(1):51–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nct196.CrossRefPubMed

Davis AT, Safi H, Maddison SM. The reduction of dose in paediatric panoramic radiography: the impact of collimator height and programme selection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(2):20140223. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140223.CrossRefPubMed

de Las Heras Gala H, Schofer F, Schofer H, Sanchez Casanueva RM, Zervides C, Mair K, et al. A patient-centric approach to quality control and dosimetry in CT including CBCT. Phys Med. 2018;47:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.02.005.CrossRef

Espelid I, Mejare I, Weerheijm K. EAPD guidelines for use of radiographs in children. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4(1):40–8.PubMed

EzEldeen M, Stratis A, Coucke W, Codari M, Politis C, Jacobs R. As low dose as sufficient quality: optimization of cone-beam computed tomographic scanning protocol for tooth autotransplantation planning and follow-up in children. J Endod. 2017;43(2):210–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.022.CrossRefPubMed

Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11(2):88–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9101100203.CrossRefPubMed

García Vera MdC. Reducción de dosis en la telerradiografía lateral de cráneo en pediatría: nueva técnica de colimación con filtración compensada. 2006.

Gavala S, Donta C, Tsiklakis K, Boziari A, Kamenopoulou V, Stamatakis HC. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography. Eur J Radiol. 2009;71(1):42–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.03.018.CrossRefPubMed

Gijbels F, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Debaveye D, Verlinden S, Sanderink G. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: Patient exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34(3):145–9. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28107460.CrossRefPubMed

Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Castro C, Jacobs R. Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(2):121–8. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2014.44.2.121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRefPubMed

Gwet K. Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters. Stat Methods Inter-rater Reliab Assess. 2002;1(6):1–6.

Hayakawa Y, Kobayashi N, Kuroyanagi K, Nishizawa K. Paediatric absorbed doses from rotational panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001;30(5):285–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600625.CrossRefPubMed

Hedesiu M, Marcu M, Salmon B, Pauwels R, Oenning AC, Almasan O, et al. Irradiation provided by dental radiological procedures in a pediatric population. Eur J Radiol. 2018;103:112–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.04.021.CrossRefPubMed

Hidalgo A, Davies J, Horner K, Theodorakou C. Effectiveness of thyroid gland shielding in dental CBCT using a paediatric anthropomorphic phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(3):20140285. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140285.CrossRefPubMed

Horner K, Rushton V, Tsiklakis K, Hirschmann PN, van der Stelt PF, Glenny A-M et al. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology; the safe use of radiographs in dental practice. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. Radiation Protection: EU2004 2004. Report No.: 92-984-5958-1.

ICRP. The 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 60. Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1–3).

ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2–4):1–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003.CrossRef

ICRP. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann ICRP 2004;34.

Johnson KB, Ludlow JB, Mauriello SM, Platin E. Reducing the risk of intraoral radiographic imaging with collimation and thyroid shielding. Gen Dent. 2014;62(4):34–40.PubMed

Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007a;36(2):68–74. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/53852973.CrossRefPubMed

Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S. Possibilities of dose reduction in lateral cephalometric radiographs and its effects on clinical diagnostics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007b;36(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/15761373.CrossRefPubMed

Khong PL, Ringertz H, Donoghue V, Frush D, Rehani M, Appelgate K, et al. ICRP publication 121: radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. Ann ICRP. 2013;42(2):1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2012.10.001.CrossRefPubMed

Kleinerman RA. Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36(Suppl 2):121–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-006-0191-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Land CE. Estimating cancer risks from low doses of ionizing radiation. Science. 1980;209(4462):1197–203.CrossRefPubMed

Little MP. Heterogeneity of variation of relative risk by age at exposure in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2009;48(3):253–62.CrossRefPubMed

Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;251(1):6–12. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2511081686.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ludlow JB. A manufacturer’s role in reducing the dose of cone beam computed tomography examinations: effect of beam filtration. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(2):115–22. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/31708191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(1):106–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018.CrossRefPubMed

Ludlow JB, Koivisto J. Dosimetry of orthodontic diagnostic FOVs using low dos CBCT protocol. 2015 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session & Exhibition; Boston, USA2015.

Ludlow JB, Walker C. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(6):802–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(9):1237–43. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339.CrossRefPubMed

Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB. Correction to Effective dose of dental CBCT–a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015a;44(7):20159003. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20159003.CrossRefPubMed

Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015b;44(1):20140197. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197.CrossRefPubMed

Marcu M, Hedesiu M, Salmon B, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Oenning ACC, et al. Estimation of the radiation dose for pediatric CBCT indications: a prospective study on ProMax3D. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28(3):300–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12355.CrossRefPubMed

Mazonakis M, Damilakis J, Raissaki M, Gourtsoyiannis N. Radiation dose and cancer risk to children undergoing skull radiography. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34(8):624–9.CrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009a;151(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009b;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mota de Almeida FJ, Knutsson K, Flygare L. The effect of cone beam CT (CBCT) on therapeutic decision-making in endodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(4):20130137. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(9):1558–64.CrossRefPubMed

Nemtoi A, Czink C, Haba D, Gahleitner A. Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(8):20120443. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120443.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B, et al. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: dIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-4012-9.CrossRefPubMed

Oenning AC, Pauwels R, Stratis A, De Faria Vasconcelos K, Tijskens E, De Grauwe A, et al. Halve the dose while maintaining image quality in paediatric Cone Beam CT. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):5521. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41949-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Ekholm M, Haukka J, Evalahti M, Waltimo-Siren J. Are children’s dental panoramic tomographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs sufficiently optimized? Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(1):103–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv076.CrossRefPubMed

Panmekiate S, Rungwittayathon P, Suptaweeponboon W, Tangtraitham N, Pauwels R. Optimization of exposure parameters in dental cone beam computed tomography using a 3-step approach. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;126(6):545–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(2):267–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028.CrossRefPubMed

Pauwels R, Cockmartin L, Ivanauskaite D, Urboniene A, Gavala S, Donta C, et al. Estimating cancer risk from dental cone-beam CT exposures based on skin dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2014a;59(14):3877–91. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3877.CrossRefPubMed

Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014b;43(5):20140059. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140224. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140224.CrossRefPubMed

Pauwels R, Horner K, Vassileva J, Rehani MM. Thyroid shielding in cone beam computed tomography: recommendations towards appropriate use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019;48(7):20190014. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20190014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Product ESRC Methods Progr Vers. 2006;1:b92.

Preston DL, Cullings H, Suyama A, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(6):428–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn045.CrossRefPubMed

Prins R, Dauer LT, Colosi DC, Quinn B, Kleiman NJ, Bohle GC, et al. Significant reduction in dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) eye dose through the use of leaded glasses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(4):502–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.04.041.CrossRefPubMed

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013.

Robb J. Estimates of radiation detriment in a UK population: National Radiological Protection Board. 1994.

Rush E, Thompson N. Dental radiography technique and equipment: how they influence the radiation dose received at the level of the thyroid gland. Radiography. 2007;13(3):214–20.CrossRef

Sansare KP, Khanna V, Karjodkar F. Utility of thyroid collars in cephalometric radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(8):471–5. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25040799.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am. 2008;52(4):707–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005.CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt K, Velders XL, van Ginkel FC, van der Stelt PF. The use of a thyroid collar for intraoral radiography. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1998;105(6):209–12.PubMed

Sedentexct. Radiation protection no 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. European commision. 2012. http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf. Accessed 03 June 2014.

Shetty A, Almeida FT, Ganatra S, Senior A, Pacheco-Pereira C. Evidence on radiation dose reduction using rectangular collimation: a systematic review. Int Dent J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12411.CrossRefPubMed

Shin HS, Nam KC, Park H, Choi HU, Kim HY, Park CS. Effective doses from panoramic radiography and CBCT (cone beam CT) using dose area product (DAP) in dentistry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(5):20130439. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130439.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.CrossRefPubMed

Stenstrom B, Henrikson CO, Holm B, Richter S. Absorbed doses from intraoral radiography with special emphasis on collimator dimensions. Swed Dent J. 1986;10(1–2):59–71.PubMed

Stratis A, Zhang G, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H. Rotating and translating anthropomorphic head voxel models to establish an horizontal Frankfort plane for dental CBCT Monte Carlo simulations: a dose comparison study. Phys Med Biol. 2016a;61(24):N681–96. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/61/24/n681.CrossRefPubMed

Stratis A, Zhang G, Lopez-Rendon X, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H. Customisation of a Monte Carlo dosimetry tool for dental cone-beam Ct systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016b;169(1–4):378–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw024.CrossRefPubMed

Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, Pauwels R, Bogaerts R, Dds RJ. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1010):153–60. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/19389412.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology. 2009;251(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2511080671.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

UNSCEAR. Report to the general assmebly. Volume II: scientific Annex B: effects of radiation exposure of children. 2013.

UNSCEAR. Effects of ionizing radiation (exposure from natural sources of radiation), New York, 1993. 2017.

Whaites E. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2007.

White SC, Mallya SM. Update on the biological effects of ionizing radiation, relative dose factors and radiation hygiene. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(Suppl 1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01665.x.CrossRefPubMed

Yepes JF, Booe MR, Sanders BJ, Jones JE, Ehrlich Y, Ludlow JB, et al. Pediatric phantom dosimetry of Kodak 9000 cone-beam computed tomography. Pediatr Dent. 2017;39(3):229–32.PubMed

Title: Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review
Authors: J. W. G. Van Acker
N. S. Pauwels
R. G. E. C. Cauwels
S. Rajasekharan
Publication date: 01-08-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Digital Volume Tomography
Digital Volume Tomography
Radiation Protection
Published in: European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 1818-6300
Electronic ISSN: 1996-9805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-020-00544-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Diagnostic efficacy of cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review

X-ray microanalysis of dentine in primary teeth diagnosed Dentinogenesis Imperfecta type II

Editorial

Best clinical practice guidance for prescribing dental radiographs in children and adolescents: an EAPD policy document

Trends in CBCT current practice within three UK paediatric dental departments

Correction to: Diagnostic efficacy of cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review