Dental X-Rays Linked to Low Birth-Weight Babies

Reuters via My Yahoo! ^ | April 27, 2004 | Reuters Health Stringer

[Pharmboy]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Pregnant women who undergo dental X-rays may raise their risk of having low birth-weight babies, researchers said on Tuesday.

The association could be related to exposing the mothers' thyroid, pituitary or hypothalamus glands to radiation, even early in the pregnancy.

"Up until now, people assumed that head and neck radiation will not have any adverse effects on pregnant women. They assumed that only direct radiation to the uterus or the fetus would be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes," said Philippe Hujoel of the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the study.

But a seven-year review of a dental insurance company's records in the state of Washington found pregnant women who underwent extensive dental X-rays were at three times the risk of having a low birth-weight baby, characterized as weighing 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg) or less.

Some 20 percent of the 5,585 infants in the study had low birth weight.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, divided women into three groups, with the highest level of radiation exposure from dental X-rays comparable to that received in four to 16 round-trip flights between New York and London.

"Since women may not always be aware of their pregnancy status, it may not be possible to eliminate all dental radiography during pregnancy, but if this goal could be achieved and if the identified association is causal, the prevalence of (term low birth-weight) infants could be reduced by up to 5 percent," the report said.

[Pharmboy]

Health alert folks...no x-rays if there is a chance of being in the family way.

[Barn Owl]

Just too bad that my mom didn't have access to dental x-rays.
Barn Owl

[jtminton]

Hey, don't low birth weights make for a more pleasant delivery? That's why I tried to get my wife to smoke when she was pregnant. (rimshot)

(just kidding, I know that LBW is a serious problem!)

[maica]

If the amount of radiation was the same as that accumulated in 4 to 16 transatlantic flights then it is reasonable to say that international flight attendants would be extremely high-risk for low birth-weight babies.

Somehow, in more than a half century of long distance commercial flight, this correlation would have become obvious.

So, I conclude that this particular study is looking for problems in the wrong area.

[Doctor Stochastic]

That would have to be pregnant international flight attendants. Unless airlines are adopting the Weather Channel standards.

[maica]

In the history of commercial international air travel flight atendants have married and proceeded to have families.

If the amount of radiation referenced by this study was harmful, there would be a pattern of flight attendants having low birthweight babies in much higher proportions than the general population of non-flying women.

The original comment on this thread was for women who may be or about to be pregnant not to get dental x-rays. I think that is a 'knee-jerk' reaction to suspect statistics, unless the comment was made as sarcasm.

I think the researcher's sample was much too small to reach such a conclusion.

[Pharmboy]

They looked at over 5,000 infants. The numbers are impressive, as are the study's finding, IMO. No radical change of habits needed: women should be sure they're not pregnant before getting dental x-rays. No big deal--it's the percentage move to make.

[Doctor Stochastic]

My last dental x-ray was done using a digital scanner. I was told that the amount of radiation was much less than with the old film systems. The "effective film speed" of the digital system was better they said. (I didn't get actual numbers.) The x-ray was ready in just a couple of seconds, though.