Thiago Oliveira Gamba, Fernanda Visioli, Deise Renata Bringmann, Pantelis Varvaki Rados, Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira, Isadora Luana Flores
{"title":"Impact of dental imaging on pregnant women and recommendations for fetal radiation safety: A systematic review.","authors":"Thiago Oliveira Gamba, Fernanda Visioli, Deise Renata Bringmann, Pantelis Varvaki Rados, Heraldo Luis Dias da Silveira, Isadora Luana Flores","doi":"10.5624/isd.20230177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study was conducted to investigate the safety of dental imaging in pregnant women with respect to fetal health.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51714,"journal":{"name":"Imaging Science in Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10985525/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Imaging Science in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20230177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.