What are the potential risks of radiation exposure from dental x-rays?

In summary: So even if I were to worry about every dental x-ray, it would still be less than the average yearly dose from all sources.
  • #1
weezilla
8
0
Hey guys, I wasn't exactly sure where to put this one--but figured here might be best. I went to the dentist this morning and they took two bitewing x-rays, which are a low amount of radiation (~0.038mSv). The claim is that, since we routinely receive ~3-4mSv per year due to radiation incident from space or domestic radioactive traces, it's not something to be worried about. I agree, and think it's a good argument--but one thing was bothering me.

The problem with ionizing radiation is that it disrupts DNA replication, and in an unlucky case, the radiation can happen to knock out the wrong gene during DNA replication, leading to cells becoming cancerous and proliferating unchecked. However, if I recall my bio100 correctly, it takes several genes of your DNA to get knocked out to actually lead to cancer. So I'm wondering a couple of things.

1) This is biology related: if only one gene gets knocked out, will that cell line eventually die out, so say, in 10 years, that gene is no longer missing in any cells in your body (or at least is in a negligible number of cells).

2) This is the physics question I'm actually concerned about: 0.038mSv in a fraction of a second seems like it could be more dangerous than receiving 3-4mSv over a year. Further, these dental x-rays are concentrated on a specific area, and seem like they could do more damage than you are likely to get from other sources throughout the year.

Can anyone offer any wisdom on this? I've been very curious about it.

Here is my very rough source on the numbers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-p-connelly-dds/dental-xray-radiation_b_960573.html . Feel free to contribute better numbers if mine are way too off.

Thanks so much !
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
1) The body has repair and safety mechanisms that take care of most broken DNA. If it cannot repaired, most likely the cell will die or be killed very quickly. Cancer is caused by the cases where such a cell is (a) not killed and (b) divides at a much higher rate than usual.

2) It depends very much on what part of the body receives the radiation dose. Bone marrow is very sensitive, but the extremities (hands for example) are not. "Dead" material (tooth enamel) is not sensitive at all. Dental x-ray machines are set up to irradiate only where it is necessary so the "dose density" will be higher than what you get in an airplane (because that is spread out over the whole body), but the most sensitive part of the body will receive nothing.

I would not worry about a dental x-ray. But if another dentist wanted to take another x-ray for no apparent reason, I'd ask him to look at the ones you already have first and explain why new one is needed. There can be good reasons...
 
  • #3
the chromosome is a very small target.

and dental xrays are a small dose.

Take comfort in the astronomical odds.

old jim
 
  • #4
The majority of damage from ionizing radiation is from ionizing water in the body (since the body is the most abundant possible target. This causes free radicals to form, especially hydrogen peroxide, which causes a cascade forming more free radicals. At some point the process stops. It is this cascade of free radicals that are very localized which disrupts the DNA. As stated, the cellular repair/apoptosis (programmed cell death) mechanisms usually can take care of the problem (there are oodles of cells that die every second due to normal metabolic functioning). So, one additional cell killed isn't much of anything. It's when a bunch of cells are killed (because the dose rate is so high) that causes a problem.
 
  • #5
hah, I didn't expect to receive so many 'biology' answers on this forum, much less this particular sub-forum. These are all very comforting, and it's nice to think about the actual mechanism (ie: water radicals) to have an idea of what's actually happening.

I'm still slightly uneasy about the contrast between how much you get on average per day, and how much you get in a brief amount of time at the dentist, but I don't know if there's anything I can do about that.
 
  • #6
weezilla said:
I'm still slightly uneasy about the contrast between how much you get on average per day, and how much you get in a brief amount of time at the dentist, but I don't know if there's anything I can do about that.

Think about it this way. The dose you get the few times you get an x-ray from the dentist is low compared to the daily average does added up over your lifespan.

Your average dose per year from natural sources is about 300 mrem/year. A dental x-ray is about 10 mrem. Assuming that you get 3-5 x-rays in one go, as I think I get, that's 30-50 mrem per visit. I only get new x-rays about every 2-4 years, so my average yearly dose is about 15-25 mrem. In my case the dental x-rays increases my average yearly exposure by less than 9%. I think that's a very acceptable risk considering that the risk I might expose myself to if I didn't get an x-ray and ended up having bad teeth, which many times requires surgery and such to remove, exposing me to the possibility of infection and reducing my quality of life.

Those numbers are refrenced from here: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm
Any additional sources of radiation will increase your exposure, but even in the worst case scenarios you are almost guaranteed to benefit more from receving them as opposed to not, as you will usually receive much more radiation when you have a problem such as already existing cancer, diseases that require radioactive dyes, or other disorders.

Also, if I remember correctly, it is better to receive a larger dose in a very short span, than a lower dose over a long span. For some reason our bodies have an easier time dealing with the damage. Perhaps because the affected cells have a better chance of dying straight away instead of passing on mutated genes?
 
  • #7
daveb said:
It's when a bunch of cells are killed (because the dose rate is so high) that causes a problem.

Well, this is a problem when one gets *big* dose.

Cancer danger arises from a different mechanism:
DNA damage is either
* fixed (there are enzymes which exist in the body for this exact purpose, and they working in our bodies as we speak);
* or cell becomes unable to function properly and dies;
* or, the unrepaired damage happened to be in inactive part of DNA (IIRC ~90% of our DNA is inactive, so-called "junk DNA");
* or the damage does not impair cell's function too much (or at all) and cell lives on.

This last case is a step which eventually leads to cancer. Cells with slightly altered DNA may work slightly differently. For one, they may _divide_ at a higher rate, and/or stop responding to the normal mechanisms which control cell division. If the division rate is only slightly higher than normal, then the forming tumor is not yet a cancer, but if one of these new cells will speed up its division rate even more, then it's child cells will swamp out slower dividing ones. It's a natural selection of a horrifying kind: the "worst" cell wins. (And that's why doctors pay so much attention to tumors even if they are non-cancerous).

Theoretically, any single DNA damage event can lead to this - with very small probability for each of it. Therefore, anything which increases DNA damage increases cancer rate - but not necessarily by a measurable amount! (Well, unless there are mechanisms in our body which significantly increase amounts of DNA-repairing enzymes in response to increased rate of DNA damage. Are there such?)

Logic says that the chances of DNA damage leading to cancer should be proportional to the dose. Taking into account that there is non-radiation induced DNA damage happening all the time, low dose (such as dental X-ray) cancer risk increase is very tiny. You'd get much better improvement in your chances not by refusing X-rays, but by paying attention to your lifestyle: what do you eat, do you exercise, etc.
 
  • #8
Asimov's essay "At Closest Range" explains just what a small target a DNA molecule is for a gamma ray.

But DNA being largely carbon, it will contain an occasional C14 atom. When that one fizzles into nitrogen a chromosome gets changed.
Carbon 14 is the only naturally occurring isotope that has significant presence in DNA, per that essay.

So Mother Nature has built in a natural mechanism for chromosomes to get altered. I guess she too likes a little change every now and then.

old jim
 
  • #9
jim hardy said:
Asimov's essay "At Closest Range" explains just what a small target a DNA molecule is for a gamma ray.

But DNA being largely carbon, it will contain an occasional C14 atom. When that one fizzles into nitrogen a chromosome gets changed.
Carbon 14 is the only naturally occurring isotope that has significant presence in DNA, per that essay.

So Mother Nature has built in a natural mechanism for chromosomes to get altered. I guess she too likes a little change every now and then.

old jim

There are many ways not related to nuclear decay/radiation for DNA to get damaged. Some are chemical (free radicals attacking the molecule), some are stochastic (errors during cell division) and some are even built-in into our genes. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon

Nature indeed did not see cancer as a problem. Far bigger problem for it would be a 100% safe and stable copying of DNA. Why do you think sexual reproduction exists and is so widespread? Because in the long run, trying random new combinations is better for evolution than stagnant copying of the same old record.
 

1. What is radiation and how is it used in dental x-rays?

Radiation is a form of energy that is released in the form of waves or particles from a source. In dental x-rays, a small amount of radiation is used to create an image of your teeth and bones. The x-ray beam passes through your body and is absorbed in different amounts depending on the density of the material it passes through. This allows the x-ray to create an image of your teeth and bones, which can help dentists diagnose and treat oral health issues.

2. Are dental x-rays safe?

Yes, dental x-rays are generally considered safe. The amount of radiation used in dental x-rays is very low and the risk of any harmful effects is extremely small. However, dentists take precautions to minimize exposure by using lead aprons and taking x-rays only when necessary. Additionally, digital x-rays have further reduced the amount of radiation used compared to traditional film x-rays.

3. How often should I get dental x-rays?

The frequency of dental x-rays varies depending on your age, oral health, and risk for developing dental problems. Generally, adults with good oral health may only need x-rays every 2-3 years, while children or those with a history of dental issues may need them more frequently. Your dentist will assess your individual needs and determine the appropriate frequency of x-rays for you.

4. Can dental x-rays cause cancer?

There is a very small risk of developing cancer from dental x-rays. However, this risk is extremely low and the benefits of early detection and treatment of dental problems far outweigh the potential risk. Dentists also take precautions to limit the amount of radiation exposure during x-rays, further reducing the risk.

5. Are there any alternatives to dental x-rays?

Yes, there are alternative imaging techniques that can be used in place of dental x-rays. These include cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital radiography. However, these alternatives may not be as readily available or cost-effective as traditional dental x-rays. Your dentist will determine the best imaging technique based on your individual needs and concerns.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
260
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
846
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
15K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • General Math
Replies
13
Views
9K
Back
Top