Abstract

Background: Radiotherapy is designed to deliver radiation in a precise, safe, and efficient manner to manage both cancerous and non-cancerous conditions. Among the available methods for dose verification, in vivo dosimetry stands out as the most direct approach for assessing the actual radiation received by the patient during treatment. This technique enables a comparison between the intended and administered doses, offering an additional layer of quality control alongside imaging verification and dose calculations. In vivo dosimetry is especially valuable in complex treatment modalities like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), where accurate dose delivery is critical due to steep dose gradients and the involvement of nearby healthy tissues. By placing dosimeters on or inside the patient, clinicians can obtain real-time data on delivered doses, helping ensure that the treatment plan is followed precisely. Moreover, in vivo dosimetry plays a crucial role in identifying discrepancies that may arise from setup errors, machine malfunction, or patient movement during therapy. It serves as a real-time verification tool that can detect under-dosing or overdosing, allowing clinicians to take corrective actions promptly. This proactive approach enhances patient safety, ensures treatment effectiveness, and builds confidence in the reliability of advanced radiotherapy techniques. Aim: To assess in vivo dosimetry of scattered radiation from dental implants in head and neck cancer patients. Objectives: To study the difference between actual radiation dose delivered and radiation dose planned in patients with head and neck cancers with metallic dental implants. Materials and Methods: This was a single-institution prospective observational study. Treatment and follow-up data for all patients were available in their medical records and were extracted and reviewed as part of this evaluation. Result: There was no significant difference in actual radiation dose planned and radiation dose delivered on that particular implant. Conclusion: It has been observed that with the help of GaF Chromic film dosimetry, the difference in actual radiation dose planned on that particular implant and actual radiation dose delivered to that particular implant has been calculated and it has been observed there is no significant difference.

• 1.   Wang R, Pillai K, Jones PK. Dosimetric measurement of scattered radiation from dental implants in simulated head and neck radiotherapy. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 1998 Mar 1;13(2).
• 2.   Serichetaphongse P, Kunapinun T. Comparison of back-and forward-scattered radiation from different dental materials using therapeutic dose of radiation, in vitro. J Dent Assoc Thai. 2022 Apr;72:394.
• 3.   Khaleghi G, Mahdavi H, Mahdavi SR, Khajetash B, Nikoofar A, Hosntalab M, Sadeghi M, Reiazi R. Investigating dose homogeneity in radiotherapy of oral cancers in the presence of a dental implant system: an in vitro phantom study. Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Sep 6;7(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s40729-021-00372-5. PMID: 34486092; PMCID: aPMC8419140.
• 4.   Garth JC, Burke EA, Woolf S. The role of scattered radiation in the dosimetry of small device structures. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. 1980 Dec;27(6):1459-64.
• 5.   Izewska JO, Rajan G. Radiation dosimeters. Radiation oncology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. 2005 Jul 1;36:71-99.
• 6.   Mijnheer B, Beddar S, Izewska J, Reft C. In vivo dosimetry in external beam radiotherapy. Medical physics. 2013 Jul;40(7):070903.
• 7.   Fiandra C, Ricardi U, Ragona R, Anglesio S, Romana Giglioli F, Calamia E, Lucio F. Clinical use of EBT model Gafchromic™ 𿿿lmin radiotherapy. Medical physics. 2006Nov;33(11):4314-9.
• 8.   Borca VC, Pasquino M, Russo G, Grosso P, Cante D, Sciacero P, Girelli G, Porta MR, Tofani S. Dosimetric characterization and use of gafchromic EBT3 𿿿lm or MRT ose eri𿿿cation. Journal of applied linical medical hysics. 2013 Mar;14(2):158-71.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding