Hand-held X-ray Devices Research Articles

Upotreba ručnog radiografskog uređaja za intraoralno snimanje u suvremenoj stomatološkoj praksi

Recently, there has been an increased interest in the utilization of a handheld X-ray devices for intraoral imaging in modern dental practice. Globally, several documents with recommended guidelines on the utilization of a handheld X-ray device for intraoral imaging have been issued. Considering that the recommended guidelines were contradictory, additional research was initiated on the justification of manual utilization in everyday practice. The goal of this article is to present the justification for the utilization of a handheld X-ray devices as an alternative to wall mounted fixed devices that has been presented by several studies that examined the level of radiation received by the operator, the environment and the patient. In the interest of research, the emphasis was also on the radiological image quality control. Although the results of the quality parameters on the radiological image with both types of devices proved to be successful, the results of the radiation dose oscillated and were not completely acceptable for the operator, the environment and the patient, if all radiation protection guidelines were not followed. Further research should be done additionally on people, instead on models and phantoms, before they are fully introduced into everyday dental practice.

Evaluation of Operator and Patient Doses after Irradiation with Handheld X-ray Devices

Evaluation of Operator and Patient Doses after Irradiation with Handheld X-ray Devices

An assessment of the usefulness of handheld X-ray devices in general radiography based on a performance evaluation experiment

An assessment of the usefulness of handheld X-ray devices in general radiography based on a performance evaluation experiment

Assessment of the Occupational Radiation Dose from a Handheld Portable X-ray Unit During Full-mouth Intraoral Dental Radiographs in the Dog and the Cat - A Pilot Study.

Occupational radiation protection is an important consideration in small animal clinics world-wide. With the increased use of portable handheld X-ray devices in veterinary dentistry, concerns related to occupational radiation protection are being raised. Annual occupational dose limits for dental workers are expressed as Total Dose Equivalent (TDE) or Effective Dose. The permitted TDE can vary depending on the anatomical region, ranging from 50 millisieverts (mSv) for the external whole body exposure dose to 500 mSv for external exposure of the skin or an extremity. Although several studies have been performed in human dentistry to establish the amount of backscatter radiation produced using portable handheld X-ray devices, no similar research has been conducted in veterinary dentistry. This study aimed to determine the TDE while acquiring a full mouth intraoral radiograph set in dogs and cats and to estimate the TDE for a handheld X-ray device's operator. For this, the backscatter radiation dose recorded by three sets of monitoring dosimeters located in strategic anatomical areas of the operator was assessed after taking one hundred intraoral radiographs in each group. The study concluded that the backscatter radiation levels were far below the permitted annual occupational doses in the three patient groups of this study. Even though the portable handheld X-ray unit was demonstrated to be a safe dental radiographic unit regarding backscattering radiation, the operator's eye, ovary, and breast regions were exposed to unnecessary radiation.

APPLICATION OF THE MONTE CARLO METHOD FOR THE EVALUATION OF SCATTERED RADIATION DOSE DUE TO THE USE OF HANDHELD X-RAY IN DENTISTRY.

The object of this study was to evaluate the dose of scattered radiation in the organs of the operator and assistant located in different positions within a dental room when acquiring intraoral images with a portable handheld X-ray device, using Monte Carlo simulations for recommended and traditional techniques. A typical dental installation was modeled, where the operator and assistant were placed. The beam is represented by 60-kV spectrum. Ten scenarios were simulated, representing different positions and use of the lead apron. The results of the simulations were carried out with typical parameters of the annual workload, showing significant increases in dose in the organs of the operator due to the angulation. The minimum dose in the organs of the assistant occurred when he was located 2-m away and 45° from the direction of the beam. The dose received by the operator is significantly reduced with the use apron.

Update on Hand-Held X-Ray Devices in Dentistry: a Literature Review

In the last two decades, the use of portable intraoral X-ray devices, stabilized by the operator, has increased. While all radiographic devices present an inherent risk from ionizing radiation, improper use of portable devices can increase operator exposure. Use of portable devices on a tripod or powered from a protected area is recommended. However, in highly justified cases, for using without these accessories, recommendations should be followed to reduce operator exposure. Because radioprotection is essential when using X-rays, fixed dental radiographic devices should be favored over portable equipment since the first provides a lower radiation dose to the operator.

Operator safety during the acquisition of intraoral images with a handheld and portable X-ray device.

The present study aims at investigating different radiation protection issues and dose values while acquiring intraoral images with a handheld X-ray device. An Aribex NOMAD Pro 2™, a RANDO® male head phantom, a consistency testing body, a PTW NOMEX® Multimeter, and a PTW Farmer® Ionization Chamber Type 30,010 were used to investigate: (1) dose area products; (2) the expansion of the control area (CA); (3) the scattering pattern and (4) the potential risk for operators of the X-ray device. Dose area products at different exposure times were distributed linearly with a high correlation factor (>0.9). At 4000 simulated exposures, the greatest extent of the CA was 42 cm (mean = 16.7 cm, SD = 10.8 cm). The highest occurrence of scattering radiation resulted between the RANDO® phantom and the X-ray device. No scattered radiation was measured at the dorsal part of the phantom or on the operator site of a virtual vertical plane through the focal spot of the X-ray. Through this study, we could demonstrate that the application of an Aribex NOMAD Pro 2 device for intraoral imaging does not increase the risk for the operator if the device is controlled according to the manufacturer's specifications. Furthermore, we were able to show that the CA was significantly smaller than specified by European and other international radiation protection standards.

Hand-held X-ray device: A review

This is an era of digital revolution where the world is shifting from analogue to digital electronics. This revolution has led to the invention miniaturization of devices and one such invention is hand-held X-ray devices. With the introduction of new technology in dental radiology, there is a need to change or update old guidelines that many states use to regulate the use of ionizing radiation. Currently, there are voluntary guidelines promulgated by the NCRP for dental radiation protection. Many states use the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Suggested State Regulations for the Control of Radiation to regulate the use of X-ray equipment. Hand-held portable X-ray devices are increasingly used for intraoral radiography. This development introduced new challenges to operator and patient safety, for which new or revised risk assessments must be made and acted upon prior to use.

Hand-held dental x-ray equipment – an update

Hand-held dental X-ray equipment is increasingly being purchased for use in general dental practice. The aim of this paper is to update the practitioner with recently published recommendations on the requirements for hand-held devices. The article discusses the concerns often raised with the use of hand-held equipment including safety issues for the operator and the patient. CPD/Clinical Relevance: It is important for dentists to be aware of the current guidance if considering the use of hand-held X-ray devices in their practice.

The effects of device position on the operator's radiation dose when using a handheld portable X-ray device.

Handheld X-ray devices are now offered in dental practice. Handheld X-ray units challenge the concept of a restricted access to the "controlled area" as they are held by the operator. Although an integral lead shield is provided, the distance from the body is variable, dependent on how the device is held. The aim of this article was to investigate the level of operator dose when using a handheld X-ray device in various positions. A NOMAD Pro™ Handheld X-ray system (Aribex Inc., Charlotte, NC) fitted with a remote control and mounted on a tripod was used in this study. A maxillofacial phantom ATOM(®) Max Dental and Diagnostic Phantom, model 711 HN (CIRS Inc., Norfolk, VA) was used to simulate the patient's head position. A mannequin was used to represent the operator. Pre-calibrated thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) (Qados, Agar Scientific, Stansted, UK) were placed on the mannequin close to the eyes and at the level of thyroid, trunk, waist, hand (right finger + left palm) and feet, and three TLDs were used for background radiation. Three test scenarios were investigated; Position 1, close to operators' body and parallel to the ground; Position 2, away from the body with the arms fully extended (approximately 40 cm distance) and parallel to the ground; Position 3, perpendicular to the ground while the arms are partially extended. 30 exposures each of 1 s were performed in each test. Background radiation was measured at 0.0110 mGy. The highest exposure after subtracting background radiation was recorded on the palm of the left hand (0.0310 mGy) at Position 3. The estimated dose to the operator was calculated based on an average workload of 100 intraoral radiographs weekly for a dental practitioner working 46 weeks a year. There is a negligible increase in operator exposure levels using handheld X-ray devices which remain well below the recommended levels of the Ionizing Radiation Regulations 1999. They could however represent an increase from what should be a nil exposure when using a wall-mounted machine. The position of the device relative to the operator has a significant effect on the overall operator's radiation exposure. The use of personal dosemeters is highly recommended to ensure a continuity of low radiation dose exposure. Furthermore, guidance, training and protocols on usage must be in place, strictly adhered to and regular audits are necessary to ensure compliance.

Using hand-held dental x-ray devices: Using hand-held dental x-ray devices

Since the introduction of hand-held x-ray units in dentistry, a few inexpensive devices have emerged that lack the necessary safety measures and failed to meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards. They are advertised actively and sold online in the United States.The authors present several safety issues associated with an imported hand-held x-ray device that has not been cleared by the FDA and compare the device with an FDA-cleared unit.The authors found that the non-FDA-cleared device posed major safety hazards, including high radiation doses to patients and operators, lack of operator shielding, lower-than-acceptable kilovolt (peak) value, inadequate collimation, lack of an audible signal of x-ray generation and absence of a so-called dead-man switch.Dental professionals must be aware of unsafe x-ray equipment and use only those devices that have been cleared by the FDA to protect themselves and their patients.

Hand held X-ray device

Hand held X-ray device

“PARS”—A Portable X-Ray Analyzer for Residual Stresses

Abstract The design, operation, and testing of a 7 to 11-kg hand-held X-ray device for measuring residual stresses are described. The instrument is based on a miniature X-ray tube and generator and a position-sensitive detector. No motion of the detector is needed to record a peak, eliminating the expensive and heavy gearing characteristic of a conventional diffractometer; the only mechanical motion during a measurement is one change of the orientation of the device to the object. An entirely portable instrument is therefore available for use in the plant or in the field. Tests are reported in which the stress is measured to ±40 MPa (± 6 ksi) or better in 4 to 20 s, depending on the specimen.