Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), which provides a lower dose, lower cost alternative to conventional CT, is being used with increasing frequency in the practice of oral and maxillofacial radiology. This study provides comparative measurements of effective dose for three commercially available, large (12'') field-of-view (FOV), CBCT units: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) were placed at 24 sites throughout the layers of the head and neck of a tissue-equivalent human skull RANDO phantom. Depending on availability, the 12'' FOV and smaller FOV scanning modes were used with similar phantom positioning geometry for each CBCT unit. Radiation weighted doses to individual organs were summed using 1990 (E(1990)) and proposed 2005 (E(2005 draft)) ICRP tissue weighting factors to calculate two measures of whole-body effective dose. Dose as a multiple of a representative panoramic radiography dose was also calculated. For repeated runs dosimetry was generally reproducible within 2.5%. Calculated doses in microSv [corrected] (E(1990), E(2005 draft)) were NewTom3G (45, 59), i-CAT (135, 193) and CB Mercuray (477, 558). These are 4 to 42 times greater than comparable panoramic examination doses (6.3 microSv [corrected] 13.3 mSv). Reductions in dose were seen with reduction in field size and mA and kV technique factors. CBCT dose varies substantially depending on the device, FOV and selected technique factors. Effective dose detriment is several to many times higher than conventional panoramic imaging and an order of magnitude or more less than reported doses for conventional CT

Post impact evaluation of an E-learning cross-infection control CD-ROM provided to all general dental practitioners in England

Aim To carry out a post-impact evaluation of a cross-infection control CD-ROM, developed for NHS dental teams as a continuing professional development e-learning tool. The program was commissioned by the Department of Health and developed by a project team through the UK Committee of Postgraduate Dental Deans. The Dental Practice Boardhad originally sent one copy of the CD-ROM to each dental practice in England in 2004. Method A quantitative statistical analysis of the results of 326 online respondents to the learning package and a survey of 118 dental practitioners drawn from the Dental Practice Board database. Results Practitioners felt the CD-ROM in this instance was well designed and appropriate for their needs. It is inclusive and accessible to a wide range of dental professionals including nurses and hygienists. Conclusions This form of continuing professional development is popular with dental practitioners, although it should not be the only form of continuing professional development available. However, whilst the project was generally regarded as successful, there were problems with the distribution of the CD-ROM. This suggests that anonline resource should be made available in the future

The epidemiology of fighting in group-housed laboratory mice

Injurious home-cage aggression (fighting) in mice affects both animal welfare and scientific validity. It is arguably the most common potentially preventable morbidity in mouse facilities. Existing literature on mouse aggression almost exclusively examines territorial aggression induced by introducing a stimulus mouse into the home-cage of a singly housed mouse (i.e. the resident/intruder test). However, fighting occurring in mice living together in long-term groups under standard laboratory housing conditions has barely been studied. We performed a point-prevalence epidemiological survey of fighting at a research institution with an approximate 60,000 cage census. A subset of cages was sampled over the course of a year and factors potentially influencing home-cage fighting were recorded. Fighting was almost exclusively seen in group-housed male mice. Approximately 14% of group-housed male cages were observed with fighting animals in brief behavioral observations, but only 14% of those cages with fighting had skin injuries observable from cage-side. Thus simple cage-side checks may be missing the majority of fighting mice. Housing system (the combination of cage ventilation and bedding type), genetic background, time of year, cage location on the rack, and rack orientation in the room were significant risk factors predicting fighting. Of these predictors, only bedding type is easily manipulated to mitigate fighting. Cage ventilation and rack orientation often cannot be changed in modern vivaria, as they are baked in by cookie-cutter architectural approaches to facility design. This study emphasizes the need to invest in assessing the welfare costs of new housing and husbandry systems before implementing them