The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: This article analyses dose measurement and effective dose estimation of dental CBCT examinations. Challenges to accurate calculation of dose are discussed and the use of dose-height product (DHP) as an alternative to dose-area product (DAP) is explored. METHODS: The English literature on effective dose was reviewed. Data from these studies together with additional data for nine CBCT units were analysed. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA and paired analysis are used to characterize the data. RESULTS: PubMed and EMBASE searches yielded 519 and 743 publications, respectively, which were reduced to 20 following review. Reported adult effective doses for any protocol ranged from 46 to 1073 µSv for large fields of view (FOVs), 9-560 µSv for medium FOVs and 5-652 µSv for small FOVs. Child effective doses from any protocol ranged from 13 to 769 µSv for large or medium FOVs and 7-521 µSv for small FOVs. Effective doses from standard or default exposure protocols were available for 167 adult and 52 child exposures. Mean adult effective doses grouped by FOV size were 212 µSv (large), 177 µSv (medium) and 84 µSv (small). Mean child doses were 175 µSv (combined large and medium) and 103 µSv (small). Large differences were seen between different CBCT units. Additional low-dose and high-definition protocols available for many units extend the range of doses. DHP was found to reduce average absolute error for calculation of dose by 45% in comparison with DAP. CONCLUSIONS: Large exposure ranges make CBCT doses difficult to generalize. Use of DHP as a metric for estimating effective dose warrants further investigation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT
Brenner, D. J., Elliston, C. D., Hall, E. J., & Berdon, W. E. (2001) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289 · Cited by 3,222 · cited 1×
“In conjunction with a longer life expectancy in which cancer can develop, children may be two times or more sensitive to radiation carcinogenesis than are mature adults.(24,25) Physical differences associated with gender are also associated with differences in risk.”
BackgroundMathews, J. D., Forsythe, A. V., Brady, Z., Butler, M. W., Goergen, S. K., Byrnes, G. B., Giles, G. G., Wallace, A. B., Anderson, P. R., Guiver, T. A., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f2360 · Cited by 2,029
Cited by
Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement
On behalf of the DIMITRA Research Group, H. D. B., Oenning, A. C., Jacobs, R., Pauwels, R., Stratis, A., Hedesiu, M., & Salmon, B. (2018) · Pediatric Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00247-017-4012-9 · Cited by 313
Gazzani, F., Ruellas, A. C. D. O., Faltin, K., Franchi, L., Cozza, P., Bigliazzi, R., Cevidanes, L. H. S., & Lione, R. (2018) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2018/2568235 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Ludlow, J. B., Timothy, R., Walker, C., Hunter, R., Benavides, E., Samuelson, D. B., & Scheske, M. J.
- Venue
- Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20140197
- ISSN
- 0250-832X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-542X
- OpenAlex
- W2122612676
- Cited by
- 487
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/dmfr.20140197
- The paper
- Ludlow, J. B., Timothy, R., Walker, C., Hunter, R., Benavides, E., Samuelson, D. B., & Scheske, M. J. (2015). Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.