English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Marketing new radiography devices necessitates documenting their absorbed X-ray doses. Since the current literature lacks studies on new devices, we assessed the doses of two new devices that had not previously been assessed. Objectives The new devices were compared to the Promax three dimensional (3D) scanner at two fields of view (FOV) in nine critical head and neck tissues and organs. Materials and Methods Seventeen thermoluminescence dosimeters positioned in an average-sized male RANDO phantom were used to determine the dosimetry of the three cone beam computerized tomography devices (NewTom VGi, NewTom 5G, and Promax 3D) at two field of views (FOVs), one small and one large. The exposure by each device per FOV was performed five times (30 exposures). The absorbed and effective doses were calculated for the thyroid, parotid, submandibular gland, sublingual gland, calvarium, cervical vertebra, trunk of the mandible, and mandibular ramus. The doses pertaining to the different devices, the FOVs, and the tissues were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon tests. Results The average absorbed doses, respectively, for the large and small FOVs were 17.19 and 28.89 mGy in the Promax 3D, 19.25 and 35.46 mGy in the NewTom VGi, and 18.85 and 30.63 mGy in the NewTom 5G. The absorbed doses related to the FOVs were not significantly different (P value = 0.1930). However, the effective doses were significantly greater at the smaller FOVs / higher resolutions (P = 0.0039). The doses of the three devices were not significantly different (P = 0.8944). The difference among the nine organs/tissues was significant (Kruskal-Wallis P=0.0000). Conclusion The absorbed doses pertaining to the devices and the FOVs were not significantly different, although the organs/tissues absorbed considerably different doses.

Dosimetry of Three Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Scanners at Different Fields of View in Terms of Various Head and Neck Organs