08 �� 469.90 g. and that of newborns to mothers without sellectchem radiography history was 3116.22 �� 511.80 g. The difference between these two means was not statistically significant either. Table 2 Effects of pregnant mother’s exposure to some ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on birth weight Regarding the non-ionizing radiation, we found that there was not statistically any significant difference between the birth weight of newborns to mothers exposed to electromagnetic fields (cell phones, cordless telephone, cathode-ray tube and so on) during their pregnancy and that of newborns to mothers not exposed to such radiations. Among Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries these mothers in our study, 52.75% had made use of cell phones during their pregnancy. The mean birth weight of newborns to mothers making use of cell phones was 3126.

84 �� 509.39 g and that of newborns to mothers not using cell phones was 3098.44 �� 51.22 g. Again, the Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries difference was not statistically significant. Also among these mothers in our study, 78.5% had never made use of home cordless phones during their pregnancy. The mean birth weight of newborns to these mothers was 3113.31 �� 511.47 g and the mean birth weight of newborns to mothers who had used such phones during their pregnancy was 3101.32 �� 505.07 g. Again Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries the difference between the means was not statistically significant. Finally, among these mothers in this study, 84.5% had never used monitors with the cathode ray tube (CRT) technology during their pregnancy. The mean birth weight of newborns to such mothers was 3108.32 �� 516.89 g and newborns to mothers using such devices was 3126.

69 �� 466.69 g. Again no statistically significant difference was found between these two groups. The effects of exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation during pregnancy on birth weight are displayed in Table 1. DISCUSSION Altogether, our study could not show any statistical significant difference between the mean weight of newborns whose mothers Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries had been exposed to some common sources of ionizing and non-ionizing radiations such as dental or non dental radiographies, mobile phone, cordless phone and cathode ray tube (CRT) and those of the non-exposed mothers. In contrast with what is claimed in a previously published article that pregnant women’s exposure to dental radiography increases the risk of low birth weight.

[1] our study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the birth weight of newborns to mothers exposed to dental radiography during their pregnancy and that of newborns to mothers not exposed. As was mentioned above, in our study only 19 mothers (1.58%) had undergone dental radiography, but the percentage of dental radiography in pregnant women in America Carfilzomib is not clearly reported. However, it is claimed that only 22 to 34% of women in the United States consult a dentist during pregnancy.