Do dental x-rays cause cancer?

>>8731658
Yes, there is a chance of that happening. The risk is rather small.

>>8731658
There's a chance of that happening, sure, but it's minuscule. Which is why they do an x-ray before an MRI or CAT scan.

x-ray can damage DNA and cause cancer, however for normal x-rays the chances are tiny.
unless they use some incredibly intense and uncommon techniques, you need to take a lot of pictures to get over the 20mSv per year limit for radiation workers.
https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray

File: asdfads.png (1MB, 3518x1438px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3518x1438px

>>8731658
We can't even show that big CT scans cause cancer so to say dental x-rays, very insignificant amounts of radiation in comparison to any CT scan, it would be laughable to say that any dental x-rays could cause any cancers.

Here in these charts, you can see that the amount of radiation you receive is insignificant, equivalent to being in a fucking airplane for a couple of hours. If you think having some dental x-rays is a problem, then just imagine all of the people who have to go on a plane every week for years for work obligations, and they don't have any problems. Think about the pilots and other staff on airplanes. Do you really think it's logical to say that dental x-rays cause cancer when the only increased cancers for airplane staff is like melanomas? It's just not.

Hell, even a full dental x-ray series is only about 0.01 mSv after all of the bitewings and other insignificant tooth x-rays. If dental x-rays caused cancer, then CT scans or even regular single x-rays would be a death sentence, but they aren't dangerous at all so this idea that dental x-rays are dangerous is stupid.

>>8731658
4 bitewings is equivalent to being on a plane for a couple of hours, so no, unless you want to imply that going on an airplane significantly increases your risk of cancer, which would be really silly to say.

>>8731751
>going on an airplane
What?
I didn't know that gave cancer.

>>8731756
>What?
>I didn't know that gave cancer.
Hell yeah... lots of radiation that get blocked by atmosphere gets to you when you fly high.

File: sddsvgsfdgfdbgdbg.jpg (436KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 400x400px

>>8731756
It can increase the risk of melanoma for the pilots because they are exposed to above average doses consistently for decades, but to say that medical or dental imaging would increase your risk of cancer is really a stretch. You'd have to be extremely anal to go all of the way down to these small doses that we have never shown to increase cancer risks. Anything under a equivalent body dose of 20 mSv total per year is safe. You would need a dozen CT scans to reach a dose like that. Our bodies are in incredibly resilient and can heal DNA damage easily up to a point that is far beyond anything medical or dental imaging can expose you to.

The only study I have ever really seen to show if dental imaging causes cancer was a self-reported study where they just flat out asked people with cancers around the mouth if they had lots of dental x-rays growing up, and apparently if you had lots under the age of 10, your risk was increased by like 40-90%. It's a bullshit study that can be easily falsifiable based on the fact that you're just asking these people and have no actual evidence. I hate studies like that. It's so lazy and doesn't actually show anything. It's the same with with medical imaging studies. They always mess something up and falsify the entire study. As far as we can tell though, anything under a 20-40 mSv dose is 100% safe.

File: 1481909089103.jpg (48KB, 458x390px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 458x390px

>>8731788
Thanks for the thoughtful post.

>>8731658
x-rays can cause cancer. doesn't matter if its dental or somewhere else. that is why it is highly regulated; the amount of radiation you get is very limited. so under normal circumstances the chance of getting cancer from it is really low.

>>8731658
Bitewings and other simple x-rays are pretty much trivial.

Full-set and Panoramics should only be done when nessesary. I've looked into it and kids that get a full-set or a panoramic at a young age (ie 12) have a significantly higher chance for certain types cancer.

However they're generally safe. You should prefer a panoramic instead of a full set, less total dose.

The main concern is exposure to the salivary glands, thyroid iirc, and that weird one in the brain.

>>8731827
>I've looked into it and kids that get a full-set or a panoramic at a young age (ie 12) have a significantly higher chance for certain types cancer.
source(s)?

>The main concern is exposure to the salivary glands, thyroid iirc, and that weird one in the brain.
Yea I remember when I got x-rayed prior to getting braces fitted they had me hold a shield just below my chin.

>>8731831
>>8731831
There is no source. It's just that dumb study where they asked people, with zero proof.

>>8731658
Thank God, there's someone with worse of a mouth than mine.

>>8731831
>source(s)?
look into it, I don't remember.
This is a prepubescent weaboo self-pity convention, not a published journal.

>>8731846
>everything I dislike is totally untrue trash
>people can't reliably remember if they had an xray
KYS tbqh famalam.
I remember more than one publications from big institutions but even if this is the case you're retarded.

>>8731889
but you won't provide a source because it's just not the case.

>>8731897
idc you moron. im not your teacher.