Advanced search
1 file | 399.08 KB Add to list

Radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging : should we be concerned?

Author
Organization
Abstract
Objectives: This review aimed to present studies that prospectively investigated biological effects in patients following diagnostic dentomaxillofacial radiology (DMFR). Methods: Literature was systematically searched to retrieve all studies assessing radiobiological effects of using X-ray imaging in the dentomaxillofacial area, with reference to radiobiological outcomes for other imaging modalities and fields. Results: There is a lot of variability in the reported radiobiological assessment methods and radiation dose measures, making comparisons of radiobiological studies challenging. Most radiological DMFR studies are focusing on genotoxicity and cytotoxicity, data for 2D dentomaxillofacial radiographs, albeit with some methodological weakness biasing the results. For CBCT, available evidence is limited and few studies include comparative data on both adults and children. Conclusions: In the future, one will have to strive towards patient-specific measures by considering age, gender and other individual radiation sensitivity-related factors. Ultimately, future radioprotection strategies should build further on the concept of personalized medicine, with patient-specific optimization of the imaging protocol, based on radiobiological variables.
Keywords
Otorhinolaryngology, Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging, General Dentistry, General Medicine

Downloads

  • radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging dmfr.20210153.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 399.08 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Belmans, Niels, et al. “Radiobiological Risks Following Dentomaxillofacial Imaging : Should We Be Concerned?” DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, vol. 50, no. 6, 2021, doi:10.1259/dmfr.20210153.
APA
Belmans, N., Oenning, A. C., Salmon, B., Baselet, B., Tabury, K., Lucas, S., … Baatout, S. (2021). Radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging : should we be concerned? DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, 50(6). https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210153
Chicago author-date
Belmans, Niels, Anne Caroline Oenning, Benjamin Salmon, Bjorn Baselet, Kevin Tabury, Stéphane Lucas, Ivo Lambrichts, Marjan Moreels, Reinhilde Jacobs, and Sarah Baatout. 2021. “Radiobiological Risks Following Dentomaxillofacial Imaging : Should We Be Concerned?” DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY 50 (6). https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210153.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Belmans, Niels, Anne Caroline Oenning, Benjamin Salmon, Bjorn Baselet, Kevin Tabury, Stéphane Lucas, Ivo Lambrichts, Marjan Moreels, Reinhilde Jacobs, and Sarah Baatout. 2021. “Radiobiological Risks Following Dentomaxillofacial Imaging : Should We Be Concerned?” DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY 50 (6). doi:10.1259/dmfr.20210153.
Vancouver
1.
Belmans N, Oenning AC, Salmon B, Baselet B, Tabury K, Lucas S, et al. Radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging : should we be concerned? DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY. 2021;50(6).
IEEE
[1]
N. Belmans et al., “Radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging : should we be concerned?,” DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY, vol. 50, no. 6, 2021.
@article{8716835,
  abstract     = {{Objectives: This review aimed to present studies that prospectively investigated biological effects in patients following diagnostic dentomaxillofacial radiology (DMFR).

Methods: Literature was systematically searched to retrieve all studies assessing radiobiological effects of using X-ray imaging in the dentomaxillofacial area, with reference to radiobiological outcomes for other imaging modalities and fields.

Results: There is a lot of variability in the reported radiobiological assessment methods and radiation dose measures, making comparisons of radiobiological studies challenging. Most radiological DMFR studies are focusing on genotoxicity and cytotoxicity, data for 2D dentomaxillofacial radiographs, albeit with some methodological weakness biasing the results. For CBCT, available evidence is limited and few studies include comparative data on both adults and children.

Conclusions: In the future, one will have to strive towards patient-specific measures by considering age, gender and other individual radiation sensitivity-related factors. Ultimately, future radioprotection strategies should build further on the concept of personalized medicine, with patient-specific optimization of the imaging protocol, based on radiobiological variables.}},
  articleno    = {{20210153}},
  author       = {{Belmans, Niels and Oenning, Anne Caroline and Salmon, Benjamin and Baselet, Bjorn and Tabury, Kevin and Lucas, Stéphane and Lambrichts, Ivo and Moreels, Marjan and Jacobs, Reinhilde and Baatout, Sarah}},
  issn         = {{0250-832X}},
  journal      = {{DENTOMAXILLOFACIAL RADIOLOGY}},
  keywords     = {{Otorhinolaryngology,Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Dentistry,General Medicine}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{14}},
  title        = {{Radiobiological risks following dentomaxillofacial imaging : should we be concerned?}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210153}},
  volume       = {{50}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: