Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 851

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT

Ludlow, JB, Davies-Ludlow, LE, Brooks, SL, Howerton, WB·2006·Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), which provides a lower dose, lower cost alternative to conventional CT, is being used with increasing frequency in the practice of oral and maxillofacial radiology. This study provides comparative measurements of effective dose for three commercially available, large (12'') field-of-view (FOV), CBCT units: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. METHODS: Thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) were placed at 24 sites throughout the layers of the head and neck of a tissue-equivalent human skull RANDO phantom. Depending on availability, the 12'' FOV and smaller FOV scanning modes were used with similar phantom positioning geometry for each CBCT unit. Radiation weighted doses to individual organs were summed using 1990 (E(1990)) and proposed 2005 (E(2005 draft)) ICRP tissue weighting factors to calculate two measures of whole-body effective dose. Dose as a multiple of a representative panoramic radiography dose was also calculated. RESULTS: For repeated runs dosimetry was generally reproducible within 2.5%. Calculated doses in microSv [corrected] (E(1990), E(2005 draft)) were NewTom3G (45, 59), i-CAT (135, 193) and CB Mercuray (477, 558). These are 4 to 42 times greater than comparable panoramic examination doses (6.3 microSv [corrected] 13.3 mSv). Reductions in dose were seen with reduction in field size and mA and kV technique factors. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT dose varies substantially depending on the device, FOV and selected technique factors. Effective dose detriment is several to many times higher than conventional panoramic imaging and an order of magnitude or more less than reported doses for conventional CT.

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/14340323

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 851

Metadata

Authors
Ludlow, J., Davies-Ludlow, L., Brooks, S., & Howerton, W.
Venue
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
Published
2006-07
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
219-226
ISSN
  • 0250-832X (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-542X
OpenAlex
W2132832652
Cited by
851
References
8
FWCI
42.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/dmfr/14340323
The paper
Ludlow, J., Davies-Ludlow, L., Brooks, S., & Howerton, W. (2006). Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/14340323

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.