Comparative evaluation of intraoral stent materials: dosimetric response analysis

<i>Purpose</i>. To evaluate and compare the dosimetric properties of various materials used in intraoral stents, with a particular focus on their interaction with a 6 MV photon beam in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.<i>Materials and Methods</i>. Experimental irradiation and computational simulation methods were employed to analyze the interaction of various materials with a 6 MV photon beam used in an intraoral procedure. A head phantom, cylindrical in shape and divided into 1 cm plates, was used along with circular PMMA plates and polystyrene to simulate an intraoral procedure. Radiochromic film (EBT3) was used to evaluate the dose-response of PMMA and PET-G materials with thicknesses of 1, 2, and 3 mm, irradiated under a 10 × 10 cm<sup>2</sup>field size at a 100 cm source-to-skin distance (SSD). The PENELOPE code was used to simulate the dosimetric properties of PMMA, PET-G, EVA, PDMS, and PVDF based on their chemical compositions.<i>Results</i>. A maximum divergence of 4.2% was observed between PET-G and PMMA at a thickness of 3 mm during the experimental procedure. Additionally, a maximum difference of 1.2% was noted when comparing the simulated percentage depth dose curves. Discrepancies of up to 10% were found between experimental irradiation and simulations in polystyrene regions, likely due to the sensitivity of the film to incident fluence. When comparing the simulated materials (PMMA, PET-G, EVA, PDMS, and PVDF), the largest divergence observed was 20% at the surface of the phantom and did not exceed 15% at depths under 10 cm, specifically between PVDF and PMMA. For all other materials, the divergence remained below 10% across all regions.<i>Conclusions</i>. The results suggest that all the materials evaluated for intraoral stent fabrication can be effectively analyzed using the simulation code. PET-G, EVA, and PDMS showed dose-response variations of less than 10%, which should be considered when calculating doses in the treatment system planning, as stents made from these materials may increase the dose to nearby organs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
Published
2025-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/add6ac
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative evaluation of intraoral stent materials: dosimetric response analysis

Romulo Rocha Santos, Heitor Ribeiro Birnfeld, Gabriela Corati Touguinha, Luzia Fernandes Millão et al.
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

Comparative evaluation of intraoral stent materials: dosimetric response analysis

Romulo Rocha Santos, Heitor Ribeiro Birnfeld, Gabriela Corati Touguinha, Luzia Fernandes Millão, O. Paucar, Mirko Salomón Alva-Sánchez, A. Gonzales, José Fernando Márquez Pachas, Leonardo Pessoa da Silva, Henrique Trombini, Carmen Sandra Guzmán Calcina
article en

Abstract

<i>Purpose</i>. To evaluate and compare the dosimetric properties of various materials used in intraoral stents, with a particular focus on their interaction with a 6 MV photon beam in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.<i>Materials and Methods</i>. Experimental irradiation and computational simulation methods were employed to analyze the interaction of various materials with a 6 MV photon beam used in an intraoral procedure. A head phantom, cylindrical in shape and divided into 1 cm plates, was used along with circular PMMA plates and polystyrene to simulate an intraoral procedure. Radiochromic film (EBT3) was used to evaluate the dose-response of PMMA and PET-G materials with thicknesses of 1, 2, and 3 mm, irradiated under a 10 × 10 cm<sup>2</sup>field size at a 100 cm source-to-skin distance (SSD). The PENELOPE code was used to simulate the dosimetric properties of PMMA, PET-G, EVA, PDMS, and PVDF based on their chemical compositions.<i>Results</i>. A maximum divergence of 4.2% was observed between PET-G and PMMA at a thickness of 3 mm during the experimental procedure. Additionally, a maximum difference of 1.2% was noted when comparing the simulated percentage depth dose curves. Discrepancies of up to 10% were found between experimental irradiation and simulations in polystyrene regions, likely due to the sensitivity of the film to incident fluence. When comparing the simulated materials (PMMA, PET-G, EVA, PDMS, and PVDF), the largest divergence observed was 20% at the surface of the phantom and did not exceed 15% at depths under 10 cm, specifically between PVDF and PMMA. For all other materials, the divergence remained below 10% across all regions.<i>Conclusions</i>. The results suggest that all the materials evaluated for intraoral stent fabrication can be effectively analyzed using the simulation code. PET-G, EVA, and PDMS showed dose-response variations of less than 10%, which should be considered when calculating doses in the treatment system planning, as stents made from these materials may increase the dose to nearby organs.

Biomedical Physics & Engineering ExpressVol. 11(4)
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR), Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (BR), National University of San Marcos (PE), Santa Casa Hospital (BR), Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo (BR), Universidad Ricardo Palma (PE), Universidad Tecnológica del Perú (PE), Universidad Continental (PE), National University of Engineering (PE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.