You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 292 No. 9, September 1, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Pediatrics
 •Neonatology and Infant Care
 •Radiation Therapy
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Women's Health
 •Pregnancy and Breast Feeding
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Low Birth Weight

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: I am concerned about 2 possible confounding factors in the study by Dr Hujoel and colleagues.1 First, in December 2000 the Washington State Department of Health alerted state health departments throughout the United States to the discovery of lead oxide powder in shielded boxes used to store radiographic films in dental offices. Subsequent testing demonstrated the possibility of the transfer of substantial amounts of lead to patients' mouths from contaminated film and the technicians' hands.2 Because maternal lead exposure has been associated with low birth weight (LBW), and because the study population was located in Washington state, the possibility that lead exposure was contributory to LBW in this study cannot be excluded.

Second, radiation doses delivered to the thyroid gland remain unknown, despite the authors' careful attempts to estimate them retrospectively. This is due in part to lack of documentation about the use of thyroid shielding, which . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Robert E. Reiman, MD
reima001@mc.duke.edu
Radiation Safety Division
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Low Birth Weight
M. Lynn Pisaniello
JAMA. 2004;292(9):1019.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Low Birth Weight
Cassandra E. Henderson and Hany Ahmed
JAMA. 2004;292(9):1019.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Low Birth Weight
James Welsh
JAMA. 2004;292(9):1019-1020.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Low Birth Weight
Peter B. Lockhart, Michael T. Brennan, Howell Sasser, and John Ludlow
JAMA. 2004;292(9):1020.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Low Birth Weight—Reply
Philippe P. Hujoel, Anne-Marie Bollen, Carolyn J. Noonan, and Michael A. del Aguila
JAMA. 2004;292(9):1020-1021.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antepartum Dental Radiography and Infant Low Birth Weight
Philippe P. Hujoel, Anne-Marie Bollen, Carolyn J. Noonan, and Michael A. del Aguila
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1987-1993.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.