Home › Forums › Radiology and Imaging › Shaping X-ray spectra with filters in X-ray diagnostics
Welcome Dear Guest
To create a new topic please register on the forums. For help contact : discussdentistry@hotmail.com
- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 09/04/2011 at 7:46 am by sushantpatel_doc.
-
AuthorPosts
-
05/04/2011 at 5:41 pm #11859sushantpatel_docOfflineRegistered On: 30/11/2009Topics: 510Replies: 666Has thanked: 0 timesBeen thanked: 0 times
The influence on image contrast, tube load and patient mean absorbed dose of different ways of shaping diagnostic X-ray spectra by placing filters in the beam is derived for two radiographic models (abdominal screen-film radiography and intra-oral, dental radiography) using a computational model. The filters are compared at either equal tube load (keeping tube potential constant) or equal contrast (adjusting the tube potential with the different filters), but always at equal energy imparted per unit area to the image receptor. Compared at equal tube load and relative to standard aluminium filtration, reductions in the mean absorbed dose in the patient of 15–25% can be achieved using filters of Cu, Ti, W and Au (increasing the tube load by 30–40% compared with standard aluminium filtration). However, contrast is also reduced by 7%. Compared at equal contrast, the dose reductions are smaller, about 10%. Filters of copper are generally recommended, as are filters of aluminium. The use of bandpass filters (K-edge filters) should be restricted to examinations where the need for substantial variation in tube potential from patient to patient is small. The benefit of using thicker filters than those commonly used today (increasing tube load by factors of 1.4–2.0 compared with no added filter) is small as the dose reduction is most rapid for small initial values of added filters, and the increase in tube load increases steadily with increasing filter thickness.
08/04/2011 at 4:04 pm #17066DrsumitraOfflineRegistered On: 06/10/2011Topics: 238Replies: 542Has thanked: 0 timesBeen thanked: 0 times2. X-RAY COLLIMATION CHANGES
Collimating the X-ray beam to the precise size of the image receptor eliminates scatter radiation. Most vendors produce large,DENTRIX round cones with large X-ray beam patterns so the operator “cannot miss” the film or receptor. This not only adds scatter radiation, reducing image quality, but also adds significantly to the patient’s X-ray dosage. Scatter radiation to any receptor—film, sensor, or phosphor plate dramatically reduces image quality. The new report mandates the use of a rectangular collimator. This is actually GOOD news for image quality, but may make assistants shudder because of the smaller area of the beam. They might think that they will produce more errors such as “cone cuts” and “missed apices.” And they might. However, help is on the way!
Dentists and their auxiliaries will have to use a rectangular collimator of the precise size of the image receptor. This will improve the images taken by reducing scatter radiation. This collimation also reduces the patient’s skin surface X-ray dosage by almost 60%, simply because the beam size is so much smaller—but “Where’s the help?”
The NCRP report #145 states: "Rectangular collimation of the beam shall be used routinely for periapical radiography. Each dimension of the beam, measured in the plane of the image receptor should not exceed the dimension of the image receptor by more than 2% of the source-to-image receptor distance. Similar collimation shall be used, when feasible, for interproximal (bitewing) radiography."
The following are means to convert to rectangular collimationMasel film holder & positioning device
Rinn Rectangular collimator
Margraf rectangular cone
IDI TruImage™
09/04/2011 at 7:46 am #17069sushantpatel_docOfflineRegistered On: 30/11/2009Topics: 510Replies: 666Has thanked: 0 timesBeen thanked: 0 times -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.