Table 1.
Exposure conditions of different modes in the CS9300 (Carestream Dental LLC, Atlanta, Georgia) and RAYSCAN α+ (Ray Co. Ltd, Hwaseong-si, Korea).
Fig 1.
Experimental setting and facilitation for optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) measurements.
(a) OSLD encased in a holder preventing light exposure. There is identification quick response (QR) code and identification number marked on the case. (b) Human tissue-equivalent phantom with dosimeter slots. (c) Dosimetry reader (MicroStar; Landauer) optimized for 80 kVp and a low dose (<30 mGy). Each dosimeter is identified with a QR code and can be read out.
Fig 2.
The location of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) in an adult head and neck phantom (ATOM; CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA) with the slice number of the phantom.
Table 2.
Estimated fraction irradiated in tissues and tissue weighting factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Fig 3.
Dose-area-product (DAP) meter (VacuDAP™; VacuTec Meßtechnik GmbH, Dresden, Germany) for input dose measurement.
An ion chamber was attached on the surface of the X-ray tube head for the measurements.
Fig 4.
Virtual phantom and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation software.
(a) Head and neck organs included in the virtual phantom. (b) Geometric variables required for the MC simulation and PCXMC20Rotation (STUK, Helsinki, Finland) software used in this study.
Table 3.
Mean and standard deviation of dose-area-product (DAP) values measured with a DAP meter (mGy•cm2) for cone-beam computed tomography with different modes and devices.
Fig 5.
Organ dose of both methods according to the CBCT unit and examination mode.
Note that the values varied according to each organ, while the overall trend was similar using both methods.
Table 4.
The effective dose obtained with the OSLD and MC methods, and the percent difference.