Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 487

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 access
Ludlow, J B, Timothy, R, Walker, C, Hunter, R, Benavides, E, Samuelson, D B, Scheske, M J·2015·Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1259/dmfr.20140197

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 487

Metadata

Authors
Ludlow, J. B., Timothy, R., Walker, C., Hunter, R., Benavides, E., Samuelson, D. B., & Scheske, M. J.
Venue
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
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.