Original Article|Articles in Press

Evaluation of the radiation protection effectiveness of a lead-free homopolymer in cone beam computed tomography

Published:February 06, 2023DOI:


      The objective was to compare the radiation protection effectiveness of a lead-free thermoplastic homopolymer (Anti-RAD) to conventional lead shielding in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) exposures.

      Study Design

      Thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed on a human bone- and soft tissue-equivalent phantom to record equivalent doses in the thyroid gland, thyroid skin, and breast areas. CBCT images were obtained with the following 3 protocols: (1) without radiation shielding; (2) with 0.5-mm lead equivalent lead-containing shielding; and (3) with 0.5-mm lead equivalent Anti-RAD shielding. Independent t tests were used to evaluate the results.


      Compared with exposures without shielding, both lead and Anti-RAD protective devices reduced thyroid gland equivalent doses by approximately 40%, thyroid skin doses by approximately 75%, right breast skin doses by approximately 80%, and left breast skin doses by 75%. The differences in equivalent dose for both types of shielding compared with exposure with no shielding were statistically significant (P ≤ .042). However, there were no significant differences in dose reduction at any site between lead and Anti-RAD shielding (P ≥ .135).


      Radiation protection equivalent to lead can be provided with the Anti-RAD shield. With the use of this material, disadvantages such as damage to the aprons, lead toxicity, weight of lead aprons, and microbial contamination can be reduced.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Panchbhai AS
        Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen and the discovery of X-rays: revisited after centennial.
        J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2015; 27: 90
        • White SC
        • Pharoah MJ
        Oral Radiology-E-Book: Principles and Interpretation. Elsevier Health Sciences, St. Louis, ABD2014
        • Alizadeh E
        • Orlando TM
        • Sanche L
        Biomolecular damage induced by ionizing radiation: The direct and indirect effects of low-energy electrons on DNA.
        Annu Rev Phys Chem. 2015; 66: 379-398
        • Gibbs SJ
        Effective dose equivalent and effective dose: comparison for common projections in oral and maxillofacial radiology.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 90: 538-545
        • Frame PW
        A history of radiation detection instrumentation.
        Health Phys. 2004; 87: 111-135
        • Finnerty M
        • Brennan P
        Protective aprons in imaging departments: Manufacturer stated lead equivalence values require validation.
        Eur Radiol. 2005; 15: 1477-1484
        • Oppliger-Schäfer D
        • Roser H
        Quality assurance of X-ray protection clothing at the university hospital basel.
        Annual Conference of SSRMP. 2009; : 1-5
        • Papanikolaou NC
        • Hatzidaki EG
        • Belivanis S
        • Tzanakakis GN
        • Tsatsakis AM
        Lead toxicity update. A brief review.
        Med Sci Monit. 2005; 11: RA329-RA336
        • Ross AM
        • Segal J
        • Borenstein D
        • Jenkins E
        • Cho S
        Prevalence of spinal disc disease among interventional cardiologists.
        Am J Cardiol. 1997; 79: 68-70
        • Balter S
        • Rodriguez MA
        • Pike JA
        • Kleiman NJ
        Microbial contamination risk and disinfection of radiation protective garments.
        Health Phys. 2021; 120: 123-130
        • Schlattl H
        • Zankl M
        • Eder H
        • Hoeschen C
        Shielding properties of lead-free protective clothing and their impact on radiation doses.
        Med Phys. 2007; 34: 4270-4280
        • Akkurt I
        • Kılıncarslan S
        • Basyigit C
        • Mavi B
        • Akyıldırım H
        Investigation of photon attenuation coefficient for pumice.
        Int J Phys Sci. 2009; 4: 588-591

        • Vanmarcke H
        UNsCEAR 2000: sources of ionizing radiation.
        Annalen van de Belgische vereniging voor stralingsbescherming. 2002; 27: 41-65
        • Poppe B
        • Looe H
        • Pfaffenberger A
        • et al.
        Dose-area product measurements in panoramic dental radiology.
        Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007; 123: 131-134
        • Mah P
        • Buchanan A
        • Reeves TE
        The importance of the ANSI ADA Standard for digital intraoral radiographic systems—a pragmatic approach to quality assurance.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2023; 135: 117-128
        • Reeves TE
        • Lien W
        • Mah P
        Quality assurance: Acceptance testing for digital dental intraoral sensors.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020; 129: 388-400
        • Gilligan P
        • Damilakis J
        Patient shielding: the need for a European consensus statement.
        Physica Medica. 2021; 82: 266-268
      2. International Atomic Energy Agency, Radiation Protection in Dental Radiology, Safety Reports Series No. 108, IAEA, Vienna. 2022.

        • Whitcher BL
        • Gratt BM
        • Sickles EA
        A leaded apron for use in panoramic dental radiography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1980; 49: 467-470
        • Kelaranta A
        • Ekholm M
        • Toroi P
        • Kortesniemi M
        Radiation exposure to foetus and breasts from dental X-ray examinations: effect of lead shields.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016; 4520150095
        • Rottke D
        • Grossekettler L
        • Sawada K
        • Poxleitner P
        • Schulze D
        Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from panoramic radiography.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013; 4220130302
        • Eren H
        • Gorgun S
        Evaluation of effective dose with twodimensional and three-dimensional dental imaging devices.
        J Contemp Dent. 2015; 5: 80-85
        • Pauwels R
        • Cockmartin L
        • Ivanauskaité D
        • et al.
        Estimating cancer risk from dental cone-beam CT exposures based on skin dosimetry.
        Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59: 3877-3891
        • Akyalcin S
        • English JD
        • Abramovitch KM
        • Rong XJ
        Measurement of skin dose from cone-beam computed tomography imaging.
        Head Face Med. 2013; 9: 28
        • Silva MAG
        • Wolf U
        • Heinicke F
        • Bumann A
        • Visser H
        • Hirsch E
        Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133 (e641-640.e6405): 640
        • Hidalgo A
        • Davies J
        • Horner K
        • Theodorakou C
        Effectiveness of thyroid gland shielding in dental CBCT using a paediatric anthropomorphic phantom.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 4420140285
        • Qu X
        • Li G
        • Sanderink G
        • Zhang Z
        • Ma X
        Dose reduction of cone beam CT scanning for the entire oral and maxillofacial regions with thyroid collars.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41: 373-378
        • Tsiklakis K
        • Donta C
        • Gavala S
        • Karayianni K
        • Kamenopoulou V
        • Hourdakis CJ
        Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose cone beam CT.
        Eur J Radiol. 2005; 56: 413-417
        • Schulze RKW
        • Sazgar M
        • Karle H
        • de las Heras Gala H
        Influence of a commercial lead apron on patient skin dose delivered during oral and maxillofacial examinations under cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
        Health Phys. 2017; 113: 129-134
        • Rottke D
        • Andersson J
        • Ejima K-I
        • Sawada K
        • Schulze D
        Influence of lead apron shielding on absorbed doses from cone-beam computed tomography.
        Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2017; 175: 110-117
      3. Maghrabi HA, Deb P, Vijayan A, Wang L An overview of lead aprons for radiation protection: are they doing their best? Proceedings of 8th textile bioengineer-ing and informatics symposium. Zadar 2015, 232–240(2015).

        • McCaffrey J
        • Shen H
        • Downton B
        Mainegra-Hing E. Radiation attenuation by lead and nonlead materials used in radiation shielding garments.
        Med Phys. 2007; 34: 530-537
        • Lambert K
        • McKeon T
        Inspection of lead aprons: criteria for rejection.
        Health Phys. 2001; 80: S67-S69
        • Bjørkås LW
        • Blø S
        • Rekdal MK
        • Rusandu A
        Quality of radiation protection aprons and quality control routines at different diagnostic imaging modalities.
        Radiography Open. 2020; 6: 64-74
        • Hayes AW
        • Kruger CL
        Hayes’ Principles and Methods of Toxicology. Crc Press, USA2014
        • Shoag JM
        • Michael Burns K
        • Kahlon SS
        • et al.
        Lead poisoning risk assessment of radiology workers using lead shields.
        Arch Environ Occup Health. 2020; 75: 60-64
        • Labbé R
        Lead poisoning mechanisms.
        Clin Chem. 1990; 36: 1870
        • Kim KN
        • Kwon HJ
        • Hong YC
        Low-level lead exposure and autistic behaviors in school-age children.
        Neurotoxicology. 2016; 53: 193-200
        • Fewtrell L
        • Prüss-Üstün A
        • Landrigan P
        • Ayuso-Mateos J
        Estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation and cardiovascular diseases from environmental lead exposure.
        Environ Res. 2004; 94: 120-133
        • Wani AL
        • Ara A
        • Usmani JA
        Lead toxicity: a review.
        Interdiscip Toxicol. 2015; 8: 55-64
        • Burns KM
        • Shoag JM
        • Kahlon SS
        • et al.
        Lead aprons are a lead exposure hazard.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: 641-647
        • Mayer MN
        • Sukut SL
        • Blakley B
        • et al.
        Workers should take steps to mitigate surface lead exposure when using lead-containing personal protective equipment.
        Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2022; 63: 23-29
        • Livingstone RS
        • Varghese A
        • Keshava SN
        A study on the use of radiation-protective apron among interventionists in radiology.
        J Clin Imaging Sci. 2018; 8: 34
        • Klein LW
        • Tra Y
        • Garratt KN
        • et al.
        Occupational health hazards of interventional cardiologists in the current decade: results of the 2014 SCAI membership survey.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 86: 913-924
        • McCaffrey J
        • Tessier F
        • Shen H
        Radiation shielding materials and radiation scatter effects for interventional radiology (IR) physicians.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 4537-4546
        • McCaffrey J
        • Mainegra-Hing E
        • Shen H
        Optimizing non-Pb radiation shielding materials using bilayers.
        Med Phys. 2009; 36: 5586-5594
        • Fakhoury E
        • Provencher JA
        • Subramaniam R
        • Finlay DJ
        Not all lightweight lead aprons and thyroid shields are alike.
        J Vasc Surg. 2019; 70: 246-250
        • Jones AK
        • Wagner LK
        On the (f) utility of measuring the lead equivalence of protective garments.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40063902
        • McAleese T
        • Broderick J
        • Stanley E
        • Curran R
        Thyroid radiation shields: a potential source of intraoperative infection.
        J Orthop. 2020; 22: 300-303
        • Feierabend S
        • Siegel G
        Potential infection risk from thyroid radiation protection.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29: 18-20
        • Gotro J
        • Prime RB
        Thermosets. Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, California, America. 2002: 1-75
        • Kazemi M
        • Kabir SF
        • Fini EH
        State of the art in recycling waste thermoplastics and thermosets and their applications in construction.
        Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021; 174105776
      4. Baur E Ruhrberg K Woishnis W Chemical Resistance of Engineering Thermoplastics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands2016
        • Jadhav NR
        • Gaikwad VL
        • Nair KJ
        • Kadam HM
        Glass transition temperature: Basics and application in pharmaceutical sector.
        Asian J Pharm. 2014; 3: 82-89
        • Sayin Z
        • Ucan US
        • Sakmanoglu A
        Antibacterial and antibiofilm effects of boron on different bacteria.
        Biol Trace Elem Res. 2016; 173: 241-246
        • Bailey P
        • Cousins G
        • Snow G
        • White A
        Boron-containing antibacterial agents: effects on growth and morphology of bacteria under various culture conditions.
        Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980; 17: 549-553