Objectives: This study investigated the absorbed doses in a full anthropomorphic body phantom from two different panoramic radiography devices, performing protocols with and without applying a lead apron.
Methods: A RANDO(®) full body phantom (Alderson Research Laboratories Inc., Stamford, CT) was equipped with 110 thermoluminescent dosemeters at 55 different sites and set up in two different panoramic radiography devices [SCANORA(®) three-dimensional (3D) (SOREDEX, Tuusula, Finland) and ProMax(®) 3D (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland)] and exposed. Two different protocols were performed in the two devices. The first protocol was performed without any lead shielding, whereas the phantom was equipped with a standard adult lead apron for the second protocol.
Results: A two-tailed paired samples t-test for the SCANORA 3D revealed that there is no difference between the protocol using lead apron shielding (m = 87.99, s = 102.98) and the protocol without shielding (m = 87.34, s = 107.49), t(54) = -0.313, p > 0.05. The same test for the ProMax 3D showed that there is also no difference between the protocol using shielding (m = 106.48, s = 117.38) and the protocol without shielding (m = 107.75, s = 114,36), t(54) = 0.938, p > 0.05.
Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of this study showed no statistically significant differences between a panoramic radiography with or without the use of lead apron shielding.
Keywords: dentistry; radiation protection; radiography, panoramic; thermoluminescent dosimetry.