[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
IJRR Information::
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Keywords
For Authors::
Aims and Scope
Call for Papers
Submission Instructions
For Reviewers::
Referee page
Subscription::
Subscription Form
News & Events::
Journal News
Web Mail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
ISSN
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
..
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.
..

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE
:: Volume 24, Issue 3 (7-2026) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2026, 24(3): 839-849 Back to browse issues page
Occupational radiation exposure among dental practitioners using digital intraoral and panoramic imaging systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis
A. Kakti
Pediatric division, Preventive dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , Ateet.kakti@riyadh.edu.sa
Abstract:   (232 Views)
Background: Digital intraoral and panoramic radiography have significantly reduced patient radiation exposure; however, occupational exposure among dental practitioners in the digital era requires quantitative synthesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate mean occupational radiation dose among dental professionals using digital 2D imaging systems and to explore heterogeneity sources. Materials and Methods: Five electronic databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2025 following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Observational and experimental studies reporting quantitative occupational dose measurements (mSv/µSv) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-E and ROB-2 tools. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on practitioner type and imaging system. Results: Ten studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled correlation effect size was 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06–0.54; p=0.004), with extremely high heterogeneity (I²=99.94%). Subgroup analysis showed dentists had a higher pooled mean dose estimate (0.91 mSv; 95% CI: −0.01 to 1.82) compared to mixed dental staff (0.08 mSv; p=0.000 for subgroup difference). No significant differences were observed between handheld, panoramic, and mixed digital systems. Meta-regression demonstrated a weak but statistically significant association between mean dose and effect size (slope=0.02; p=0.050). Conclusion: Occupational radiation exposure in digital dentistry remains substantially below international safety limits but demonstrates significant variability. Practitioner behaviour and workflow factors appear more influential than equipment type, reinforcing strict adherence to ALARA principles.
Keywords: Radiation exposure, occupational exposure, dentists, digital radiography, panoramic radiography
Full-Text [PDF 1287 kb]   (61 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Review article | Subject: Radiation Biology
References
1. Morales A, Gohel A, Vyas R, Pahadia M (2023) Implementation of a quality assurance protocol for digital dental radiographic sensors at the University of Florida College of Dentistry radiology clinic. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 135(2): e53. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2022.10.023. [DOI:10.1016/j.oooo.2022.10.023]
2. Noorsaeed AS, Almohammedsaleh AH, Alhayek MM, Alnajar AA, Kariri ON, Albakri AI, et al. (2021) Overview on updates on digital dental radiography. J Pharm Res Int, 33(59B): 23-8. doi:10.9734/jpri/2021/v33i59B34347. [DOI:10.9734/jpri/2021/v33i59B34347]
3. Shatskiy I (2021) Effective doses and radiation risks from common dental radiographic, panoramic and CBCT examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 195(3-4): 296-305. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncab069. [DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncab069]
4. Harrison JD, Balonov M, Bochud F, Martin CJ, Menzel HG, Smith-Bindman R, et al. (2021) The use of dose quantities in radiological protection: ICRP publication 147. J Radiol Prot, 41(2): 410. doi:10.1088/1361-6498/abe548. [DOI:10.1088/1361-6498/abe548]
5. Anissi HD and Geibel MA (2014) Intraoral radiology in general dental practices-a comparison of digital and film-based X-ray systems with regard to radiation protection and dose reduction. Rofo, 186(8): 762-7. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1366256. [DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1366256]
6. Lee HK (2018) Factors affecting radiation safety management of dental hygienists and anxiety of radiation exposure. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc, 19(6): 432-9. doi:10.5762/KAIS.2018.19.6.432.
7. Younai FS, Murphy DC, Kotelchuck D (2001) Occupational exposures to blood in a dental teaching environment: results of a ten-year surveillance study. J Dent Educ, 65(5): 436-48. doi:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.5.tb03413.x. [DOI:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.5.tb03413.x]
8. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372: n71. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4. [DOI:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4]
9. Scells H, Zuccon G, Koopman B, Deacon A, Azzopardi L, Geva S (2017) Integrating the framing of clinical questions via PICO into the retrieval of medical literature for systematic reviews. Proc ACM Conf Inf Knowl Manag, 2291-4. doi:10.1145/3132847.3133080. [DOI:10.1145/3132847.3133080]
10. Igelström E, Campbell M, Craig P, Katikireddi SV (2021) Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: a methodological systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol, 140: 22-32. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.022. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.022]
11. Hootman JM, Driban JB, Sitler MR, Harris KP, Cattano NM (2011) Reliability and validity of three quality rating instruments for systematic reviews of observational studies. Res Synth Methods, 2(2): 110-8. doi:10.1002/jrsm.41. [DOI:10.1002/jrsm.41]
12. Hayashino Y, Noguchi Y, Fukui T (2005) Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias. J Epidemiol, 15(6): 235-43. doi:10.2188/jea.15.235. [DOI:10.2188/jea.15.235]
13. Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.4. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.
14. Wenzel A and Møystad A (2010) Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand, 68(2): 106-14. doi:10.3109/00016350903514426. [DOI:10.3109/00016350903514426]
15. Gijbels F, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Debaveye D, Verlinden S, Sanderink G (2005) Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: patient exposure. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 34(3): 145-9. doi:10.1259/dmfr/28107460. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr/28107460]
16. An SY, Lee KM, Lee JS (2018) Korean dentists' perceptions and attitudes regarding radiation safety and protection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 47(3): 20170228. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20170228. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20170228]
17. Dawood A, Patel S, Brown J (2009) Cone beam CT in dental practice. Br Dent J, 207(1): 23-8. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.560. [DOI:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.560]
18. Ardila CM, Vivares-Builes AM, Pineda-Vélez E (2024) Image quality, radiation dose, and patient comfort associated with wireless sensors in digital radiography: a systematic review. Dent J (Basel), 12(8): 267. doi:10.3390/dj12080267. [DOI:10.3390/dj12080267]
19. Abubakr RI and Hajee SI (2025) Occupational radiation exposure from handheld dental x-ray devices: a quantitative dosimetric study. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 26(12): e70375. doi:10.1002/acm2.70375. [DOI:10.1002/acm2.70375]
20. Danforth RA, Herschaft EE, Leonowich JA (2009) Operator exposure to scatter radiation from a portable hand-held dental radiation emitting device while making 915 intraoral dental radiographs. J Forensic Sci, 54(2): 415-21. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00960.x. [DOI:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00960.x]
21. Tamam N, Almuqrin AH, Mansour S, Elnour A, Musa M, Omer H, et al. (2021) Occupational and patients effective radiation doses in dental imaging. Appl Radiat Isot, 177: 109899. doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2021.109899. [DOI:10.1016/j.apradiso.2021.109899]
22. Cheng FC, Lee MC, Chen MH, Ting CY, Su CP, Liu SY, et al. (2022) Occupational radiation exposure for various medical radiation workers, especially the dental radiation workers, in Taiwan from 2013 to 2020. J Dent Sci, 17(4): 1544-52. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2022.06.011. [DOI:10.1016/j.jds.2022.06.011]
23. Kim YJ, Cha ES, Lee WJ (2016) Occupational radiation procedures and doses in South Korean dentists. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 44(5): 476-84. doi:10.1111/cdoe.12237. [DOI:10.1111/cdoe.12237]
24. Kabier MK, Abul-Hial RC, Badran HA (2025) Evaluation of X-ray radiation exposure in open dental clinics for dentists and assistants using TL-dosimeters. Appl Radiat Isot, 2025: 112186. doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2025.112186. [DOI:10.1016/j.apradiso.2025.112186]
25. Pakravan AH, Aghamiri SM, Bamdadian T, Gholami M, Moshfeghi M (2019) Dosimetry of occupational radiation around panoramic X-ray apparatus. J Biomed Phys Eng, 9(5): 525. doi:10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.466. [DOI:10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.466]
26. Ibrahim A (2024) Evaluation of cumulative radiation exposure among dental workers at Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria. Future Technol, 3(4): 22-4. [DOI:10.55670/fpll.futech.3.4.3]
27. Alashban Y, Shubayr N, Almalki M, Albeshan S, Aldawood S, Aldosari A (2021) Assessment of radiation dose for dental workers in Saudi Arabia (2015-2019). J King Saud Univ Sci, 33(1): 101250. doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101250. [DOI:10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101250]
28. Smith R, Tremblay R, Wardlaw GM (2019) Evaluation of stray radiation to the operator for five hand-held dental X-ray devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 48(5): 20180301. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20180301. [DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20180301]
29. Sedgwick P and Marston L (2015) How to read a funnel plot in a meta-analysis. BMJ, 351: h4718. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4718. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.h4718]
30. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med, 25(20): 3443-57. doi:10.1002/sim.2380. [DOI:10.1002/sim.2380]
31. Andrade C (2020) Understanding the basics of meta-analysis and how to read a forest plot: as simple as it gets. J Clin Psychiatry, 81(5): 20f13698. doi:10.4088/JCP.20f13698. [DOI:10.4088/JCP.20f13698]
32. Hodolli G, Kadiri S, Nafezi G, Bahtijari M, Syla N (2019) Diagnostic reference levels at intraoral and dental panoramic examinations. Int J Radiat Res, 17(1): 147-150. doi:10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.17.1.147.
33. Karimian A, Kiani M, Askari M, et al. (2021) Estimating the radiation surface dose and measuring the dose area product in panoramic radiography. Int J Radiat Res, 19(4): 963-970. doi:10.29242/ijrr.19.4.963. [DOI:10.52547/ijrr.19.4.24]
34. Özkan G, Sessiz Ak R, Akkaya N, Öztürk H (2021) Awareness level of dentists and dental students about radiation doses of dental imaging methods. Int J Radiat Res, 19(3): 729-736. doi:10.29252/ijrr.19.3.729. [DOI:10.52547/ijrr.19.3.729]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kakti A. Occupational radiation exposure among dental practitioners using digital intraoral and panoramic imaging systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Res 2026; 24 (3) :839-849
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-7255-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 24, Issue 3 (7-2026) Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.11 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4741