Ramírez MK, Morales ZCA, Echevarría PE, Ruesga VDR, Montoya MJJ

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 24-29
PDF size: 224.74 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Patients with cancer have anatomic alterations in the tumoral region after and before surgery, like cavities, depressions or volume increase, that represents a problem for the radiotherapy planning due to the irregular surface. The homogenizer molds are prosthetic devices used to obtain a flat area on these surfaces, its objective is the penetration of the radiation beam in a direct form, with the same intensity to all of the irradiation field. The utilization of these autopolimerizing acrylic molds have been useful and their use is continual; nevertheless the use of this acrylic has not been thoroughly studied in regard to its physical characteristics in radiotherapy, nor its effectiveness or its radiation absorption coefficient in relation to soft tissue. Material and methods: 5 Acrimin acrilic Arias brand autopolymerizing transparent homogenizers were made with different thickness: 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 cm and were irradiated with the same dose with a telecobalt 60 teletherapy machine. The absorption of radiation was measured with dosimetric Grafchromic HD-810 plates, and an average was obtained for every homogenizer, it was evaluated by a descriptive analysis, and it was stadificated and graphicated too. Results: The radiation absorption coefficient was obtained for Arias acrylic being 0.002951 cm²/g, while soft tissue was 0.0635 cm²/g, meaning that acrylic permits a more homogeneous radiation pass. Conclusion: The acrylic homogeneous molds, compared with other materials, provide better durability, dimensional stability and versatility in comparison with other materials.

REFERENCES

1. Cancer principles and practice of oncology (monograph on CD-ROOM) De Vita V, Hellman S. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 6th edition. 2003.

2. Wan CC. Radiation therapy for head and neck neoplasms. 3th edition. (USA) Wiley-Liss; 1997.

3. Jankielewicz I y cols. Prótesis bucomaxilofacial. Aparología protésica para el tratamiento con radioterapia. Barcelona: Quintenssence 2003: 221-29.

4. Guillet JP. Manual de física de radioterapia. La teleterapia (Barcelona). Masson; 1996.

5. Mustafa C, Enis O, Bahadir E, et al. High dose rate mold brachytherapy of early gingival carcinoma: clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82: 512-14.

6. Million R. Management of head and neck cancer. (Philadelphia): J.B. Lippincott Company; 1994.

7. Miyamoto R, Terence J, Michael G et al. Radiotherapeutic management of an orocutaneous defect with a balloon-retaining stent. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 115-7.

8. Rahn A. Prótesis maxilofaciales, principios y conceptos. Prótesis para radioterapia. 1ª ed. Barcelona: Toray; 1973: 59-95.

9. Bahadir E, Canan H, Enis Ö et al. A hinged flange radiation carrier for the scalp: A clinical report. J Prosthetic Dentistry 1998; 79: 369-71.

10. Bercher J. The making o fan appliance for radiumtherapy in the treatment of new growths of the jaw. Dental Record 1922; 42: 475-76.

11. Brosky ME, Chung Lee, Timothy SB, et al. Fabrication of radiation bolus prosthesis for the maxillectomy patient. J Prosthetic Dentistry 2000; 83: 119-21.

12. Khan FM. The physics of radiation therapy. Baltimore (Maryland): Williams & Wilkins; 1994.

13. Selman J. The basic physics of radiation of therapy. 3th edition. (Illinois); 2000.

14. Perez C. Principles and practice of radiation oncology. 3th edition. (Philadelphia) Lippincott; 1997.

15. Fletcher. Physics basis of radiotherapy. 3th edition (Illinois). Lea & Febiger; 2002.

16. Handbook radiological health (editorial). Department of health education and welfare.1970: 29-30, 66, 139-40.