Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of dental imaging on pregnant women and recommendations for fetal radiation safety: A systematic review

  • Thiago Oliveira Gamba (Department of Surgery and Orthopedics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) ;
  • Fernanda Visioli (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) ;
  • Deise Renata Bringmann (Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, Caxias do Sul University) ;
  • Pantelis Varvaki Rados (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) ;
  • Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira (Department of Surgery and Orthopedics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) ;
  • Isadora Luana Flores (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul)
  • Received : 2023.08.17
  • Accepted : 2023.12.04
  • Published : 2024.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to investigate the safety of dental imaging in pregnant women with respect to fetal health. Materials and Methods: Searches were conducted of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in May 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that focused on the analysis of diagnostic dental imaging in pregnant women, as well as studies utilizing phantoms to simulate imaging examinations. The exclusion criteria consisted of reviews, letters to the editor, book chapters, and abstracts from scientific conferences and seminars. Results: A total of 3,913 articles were identified. Based on a review of the titles and abstracts, 3,892 articles were excluded, leaving 21 articles remaining for full-text review. Of these, 18 were excluded, and 4 additional articles were included as cross-references. Ultimately, 7 articles underwent quantitative-qualitative analysis. Three retrospective studies were focused on pregnant women who underwent dental imaging procedures. The remaining 4 studies utilized female phantoms to simulate imaging examinations and represent the radiation doses absorbed by the uterus or thyroid. Conclusion: Few dental radiology studies have been conducted to determine the safe radiation threshold for pregnant women. Additionally, the reviewed articles did not provide numbers of dental examinations, by type, corresponding to this dose. Dental imaging examinations of pregnant women should not be restricted if clinically indicated. Ultimately, practitioners must be able to justify the examination and should adhere to the "as low as diagnostically acceptable, being indication-oriented and patient-specific" (ALADAIP) principle of radioprotection.

Keywords

References

  1. Kelaranta A, Ekholm M, Toroi P, Kortesniemi M. Radiation exposure to foetus and breasts from dental X-ray examinations: effect of lead shields. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20150095. 
  2. Ukkola L, Oikarinen H, Henner A, Honkanen H, Haapea M, Tervonen O. Information about radiation dose and risks in connection with radiological examinations: what patients would like to know. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 436-43. 
  3. European Commission. Radiation protection 136. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology. The safe use of radiographs in dental practice [Internet]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2004 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://www.sergas.es/docs/European%20Guidelines%20on%20radiation%20protection%20in%20Dental%20Radiology.pdf. 
  4. Buch B, Fensham R, Maritz MP. An assessment of the relative safety of dental x-ray equipment. SADJ 2009; 64: 348-50. 
  5. Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 35-40. 
  6. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-26. 
  7. Li G. Patient radiation dose and protection from cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent 2013; 43: 63-9. 
  8. European Commission. Radiation protection 100. Guidance for protection of unborn children and infants irradiated due to parental medical exposures [Internet]. Belgium: Publications Office of the European Union; 1999 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2014-11/100_en_1.pdf. 
  9. Li Y, Huang B, Cao J, Fang T, Liu G, Li X, et al. Estimating radiation dose to major organs in dental X-ray examinations: a phantom study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2020; 192: 328-34. 
  10. European Commission. Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines[Internet]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2012 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf. 
  11. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP. ICRP publication 60. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection [Internet]. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1999 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_21_1-3. 
  12. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA safety standards for protecting people and the environment. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. General safety requirements part 3 [Internet]. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2014 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1578_web-57265295.pdf. 
  13. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP. ICRP publication 103. The 2007 recommendations of the ICRP [Internet]. Stockholm: ICRP; 2007 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4. 
  14. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Dental radiographic examinations: recommendations for patient selection and limiting radiation exposure [Internet]. Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration; 2012 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/84818/download. 
  15. Hamilton PM, Roney PL, Keppel KG, Placek PJ. Radiation procedures performed on U.S. women during pregnancy: findings from two 1980 surveys. Public Health Rep 1984; 99: 146-51. 
  16. Orsini S, Campoleoni M, Rozza M, Conti U, Landini A, Eulisse G, et al. The doses absorbed by the patients and the exposure of the operators in dental radiodiagnosis. Radiol Med 1992; 83: 101-5. 
  17. Crane GD, Abbott PV. Radiation shielding in dentistry: an update. Aust Dent J 2016; 61: 277-81. 
  18. Tsapaki V. Radiation protection in dental radiology - recent advances and future directions. Phys Med 2017; 44: 222-6. 
  19. Lynskey GE 3rd, Powell DK, Dixon RG, Silberzweig JE. Radiation protection in interventional radiology: survey results of attitudes and use. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24: 1547-51.e3. 
  20. Mortazavi SM, Shirazi KR, Mortazavi G. The study of the effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiations on birth weight of newborns to exposed mothers. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2013; 4: 213-7. 
  21. Hujoel PP, Bollen AM, Noonan CJ, del Aguila MA. Antepartum dental radiography and infant low birth weight. JAMA 2004; 291: 1987-93. 
  22. Weber J, Ewen K, Schubel F. Determining organ doses in the uterus during dental x-ray examinations. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1989; 44: 340-3. 
  23. Morant JJ, Salvado M, Hernandez-Giron I, Casanovas R, Ortega R, Calzado A. Dosimetry of a cone beam CT device for oral and maxillofacial radiology using Monte Carlo techniques and ICRP adult reference computational phantoms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 92555893. 
  24. Gijbels F, Sanderink G, Wyatt J, Van Dam J, Nowak B, Jacobs R. Radiation doses of collimated vs non-collimated cephalometric exposures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 128-33. 
  25. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 2005; 56: 413-7. 
  26. Pina PM, Douglass J. Practices and opinions of Connecticut general dentists regarding dental treatment during pregnancy. Gen Dent 2011; 59: e25-31. 
  27. Miller C. The pregnant dental patient. J Calif Dent Assoc 1995; 23: 63-70. 
  28. Van Acker JW, Pauwels NS, Cauwels RG, Rajasekharan S. Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2020; 21: 463-508. 
  29. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336-41. 
  30. Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 408-14. 
  31. Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y, Sakaino R, Tsuchida R, Iwai K, et al. Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 79-85. 
  32. Rottke D, Grossekettler L, Sawada K, Poxleitner P, Schulze D. Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20130302. 
  33. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-43. 
  34. Lavanya R, Babu DB, Waghray S, Chaitanya NC, Mamatha B, Nithika M. A questionnaire cross-sectional study on application of CBCT in dental postgraduate students. Pol J Radiol 2016; 81: 181-9. 
  35. Mallya SM, Lam EW. White and Pharoah's oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019. p. 118. 
  36. Brent RL. Commentary on JAMA article by Hujoel et al. Health Phys 2005; 88: 379-81. 
  37. Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: Time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent 2015; 45: 263-5. 
  38. Boice JD, Stovall M, Mulvihill JJ, Green DM. Dental x-rays and low birth weight. J Radiol Prot 2004; 24: 321-3. 
  39. Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom. Laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom [Internet]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2014 [cited 2023 Nov 29]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0059.