Effect of Dental Filling Materials on Electron Beam Radiotherapy Dose Distribution in Head Region: a Monte Carlo Study by FLUKA and MCNPX Codes

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Nuclear Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Modern Technologies, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran.

2 1Department of Physics, Payame Noor University (PNU), P.O. Box 19395-3697 Tehran, Iran


Introduction: Radiation therapy is regarded as the mainstay treatment for head or neck cancer patients. In this method, the backscattered radiation of dental composites can damage the surrounding tissue.
Material and Methods: The current study compared the effects of electron beam radiation on healthy teeth with the tooth filled with materials used in dentistry with FLUKA and MCNPX2.6 codes. The simulation was performed for a 512 mm3 cubic tooth composed of Amalgam and Ceramco materials.
Results: The simulation results indicated that patients with dental caries who inevitably filled their teeth with artificial restorationreceived a more effective dose, as compared to others. Moreover, it was revealed that Ceramco increases the radiation risk more than Amalgam does. Therefore, Amalgam is the right choice for dental filling.
Conclusion: Based on the obtained results, ceramic material poses patients to increased radiation risk more than Amalgam does; therefore, it is recommended that Amalgam be used to fill dental cavities.


Main Subjects


    1. Reitemeier B, Reitemeier G, Schmidt A, Schaal W, Blochberger P, Lehmann D, et al. Evaluation of a device for attenuation of electron release from dental restorations in a therapeutic radiation field. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87(3):323–7.
    2. Abdul Aziz MZ, Yusoff AL, Salikin MS. Monte Carlo electron beam dose distribution near high density inhomogeneities interfaces. World Acad Sci Eng Technol. 2011; 58:338–41.
    3. Chin DW, Treister N, Friedland B, Cormack RA, Tishler RB, Makrigiorgos GM, et al.Effect of dental restorations and prostheses on radiotherapy dose distribution: a Monte Carlo study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009; 10(1):80–9.
    4. Bjelkengren U. Absorbed dose distributions in the vicinity of high-density materials in head and neck radiotherapy: a quantitative comparison between measurements, Monte Carlo simulations and treatment planning system. MSc Thesis in Medical Radiation Physics Clinical Science, Lund University.2007.
    5. Shiu AS, Hogstrom KR. Dose in bone and tissue near bone-tissue interface from electron beam. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991; 21(3):695–702.
    6. Farahani M, Eichmiller FC, McLaughlin WL.Measurement of absorbed doses near metal and dental material interfaces irradiated by X- and gamma-ray therapy beams. Phys Med Biol. 1990; 35(3):369–85.
    7. Botta F, Mairani A, Hobbs RF, Gil AV, Pacilio M, Parodi K, et al. Use of the FLUKA Monte Carlo code for 3D patient-specific dosimetry on PET-CT and SPECT-CT images. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2013; 58(22):8099.
    8. Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Ayat S.Comparison of three methods of calculation, experimental and monte carlo simulation in investigation of organ doses (thyroid, sternum, cervical vertebra) in radioiodine therapy. Journal of medical signals and sensors. 2012; 2(3):149.
    9. https://www.memorangapp.com.
    10. Toossi MTB, Ghorbani M, Akbari F, Mehrpouyan M, Sabet LS.  Evaluation of the effect of tooth and dental restoration material on electron dose distribution and production of photon contamination in electron beam radiotherapy. Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine. 2016; 39(1): 113-22.