Slashdot Mirror


Dental X-Rays Linked To Common Brain Tumor

redletterdave writes "A new study suggests people who had certain kinds of dental X-rays in the past may be at an increased risk for meningioma, the most commonly diagnosed brain tumor in the U.S. Dr. Elizabeth Klaus, the study's lead author and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine, discovered that dental X-rays are the most common source of exposure to ionizing radiation — which has been linked to meningiomas in the past — and that those diagnosed with meningiomas were more than twice as likely as a comparison group to report ever having had bitewing images taken. And regardless of the age when the bitewings were taken, those who had them yearly or more frequently were between 40 percent and 90 percent higher risk at all ages to be diagnosed with a brain tumor."

6 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And it took this long to "make the connection"? by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mobile phones do not release Ionizing Radiation. They release Radio Waves. These are different things. Really... You can take off your tin foil hat to make calls again.

  2. Flawed Study by blahbooboo · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a very flawed study that doesn't account for many things including a) It's based on patients "memories" of when they got x-rays and not actual dates b) Doesn't account for the dramatic reduction in amount of rays needed for the images in the last 20-30 years.

    Proof? Check this far better article http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-10/metro/31313701_1_x-rays-tumor-risk-radiation-exposure

  3. Re:not sure by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a dental student, and I have been taught that - with modern equipment - exposure to radiation from 2 bitewings is about the same as half a day of ski holiday.

    These comparisons are always misleading, because they ignore the density of the radiation received. Radiation from half a day of ski holiday is diffused over your entire body. The radiation from bite wing X-rays is concentrated on your teeth and skull. The concentration matters.

    Let's use a better analogy. The energy at the focal point of a magnifying glass might be one-hundredth the amount of energy you get from standing out in the sunshine. But because that energy is concentrated into a small point, it will burn your skin.

    We survive nature not because it isn't powerful, but because its power is spread out. That power gets dangerous when mankind focuses and purifies it.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  4. Re:And it took this long to "make the connection"? by drerwk · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, not that huge an increase. Actually 46% is a huge increase.

    They never seem to show the error bars. We are looking at a sample of 15. Not knowing anything else, one might assume Poisson statistics in which case the 1 sigma error is 1/sqrt(sample), so about 25%.
    This means that 66% of the time, if one were to run the exact same test, one would get results that varied by plus or minus 4 events. The difference between a sample of 15 and a sample of 21 can be expected about half the time.
    It really takes the urgency out of - OMG a factor of 46%.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution.

  5. Re:And it took this long to "make the connection"? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The shit got modded +5 because...lo and behold...RF from a mobile phone is non-ionizing radiation. I agree that the term "radio waves" could have been better. But it would take tens of thousands of RF photons simultaneously striking the same exact electron at the same exact time to give it enough energy to break free from the atomic bond it has formed. It only takes one photon from an x-ray to do the same.

    Go ahead. Do the math. Look up the energy it takes to ionize an atomic bond. Calculate the energy in an RF photon at 2.4 GHz. Calculate the energy in a photon of an dental x-ray (not sure what frequency they use). And then marvel at the four orders of magnitude between the two. I did this once, and maybe I should have saved a copy of the results so that I could paste it into the discussion every time some tin foil hatter thinks that 2.4 GHz "radiation" will give you cancer.

    The primary mode of action for RF energy on biological tissue is in the form of heating. Just like your microwave. The electric field causes the dipole water molecules to rattle around, and the increased friction results in heat.

    In fact, if you get an MRI, they make sure that for example your thighs are not touching each other. Because if they are, your flesh forms a loop antenna that can pick up the RF energy in the magnet room...which will cause localized heating and burns.

    http://www.mrisafety.com/safety_article.asp?subject=17

    "-Prepare the patient for the MR procedure by using insulation material (i.e., appropriate padding) to prevent skin-to-skin contact points and the formation of “closed-loops” from touching body parts."

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  6. Re:Cancer... by Zibodiz · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's a total lie. They use exactly half. Source: I'm a certified dental x-ray technician.
    'New' digital sensors require the same amount of X-Ray radiation, but for half the amount of time (for bitewings, that's about 100ms instead of 200ms), but since they're so quick to scan in (i.e. the Dentist doesn't have to wait for them to develop), if they aren't exactly perfect, dentists will often ask for re-takes. The average was 5 or 6 images on each patient. I was pretty good and usually only had a re-take every 3rd patient or so, but the other x-ray technician I worked with would often take 4 or 5 re-takes on a single patient. All-in-all, that means they got more radiation than if they had just gotten the traditional x-rays.
    I should point out, though, that the Dentist told every patient (and told us to tell them, as well) that they only get 1/100th of the radiation. It's just a party lie.
    As far as the 'pointed beam' you're talking about, that hasn't been improved, ever. The cone is just as large as it's always been. If the technician stands in the room (as my co-worker often did), they're just stupid. In fact, according to ADA recommendations, X-Ray techs are supposed to wear dosimeters. Most dentists are too cheap to buy them, though.
    The 'Bitewing' x-rays that this article is about are exactly the kind that are close to your cheek. There are 3 types of dental x-rays: Bitewings, which shoot the radiation between your molars and premolars, and are used to diagnose cavities between yoru teeth. PA's, which are used to view your entire tooth, including the entire root and an area of bone beyond it. These are useful for diagnosing a toothache, because if the toothache is caused by an infection at the apex of your root, it will be visible. That, in turn, means a root canal. The third is a Panoramic, which is the kind that wraps around your entire head, and shows all of your teeth in one shot. These are beneficial for things like getting an 'aerial view'; they don't show a lot of detail (not enough to diagnose a cavity), but will show things like impacted wisdom teeth, and are useful for Orthodontists.