References
Radiation Protection 172.: European Commission; 2012
Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Atack NE, Horner K, Whaites E., 4th edn. London: BOS; 2015
Horner K, Eaton KA., 3rd edn. UK: Faculty of General Dental Practice; 2013
Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C Effective dose of dental CBCT – a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197
Pauwels R, Cockmartin L, Ivanauskaité D SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Estimating cancer risk from dental cone-beam CT exposures based on skin dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59:3877-3891 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3877
Wall BF, Haylock R, Jansen JTM, Hillier MC, Hart D, Shrimpton PC. Radiation risks from medical X-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. HPA-CRCE-028.Chilton: HPA; 2011
Panmekiate S, Apinhasmit W, Petersson A. Effect of electric potential and current on mandibular linear measurements in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41:578-582
Vasconcelos TV, Neves FS, Queiroz de Freitas D, Campos PS, Watanabe PC. Influence of the milliamperage settings on cone beam computed tomography imaging for implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:1364-1368 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3524
Dawood A, Brown J, Sauret-Jackson V, Purkayastha S. Optimization of cone beam CT exposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41:70-74 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/16421849
Pauwels R, Zhang G, Theodorakou C, Walker A, Bosmans H, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Horner K Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: effect of field of view and angle of rotation. Br J Radiol. 2014; 87 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130654
Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Gröndahl K. Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 80:483-488 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.018
Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 56:413-417
Qu X, Li G, Zhang Z, Ma X. Thyroid shields for radiation dose reduction during cone beam computed tomography scanning for different oral and maxillofacial regions. Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81:e376-e380
Hidalgo A, Davies J, Horner K, Theodorakou C. Effectiveness of thyroid gland shielding in dental CBCT using a paediatric anthropomorphic phantom. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140285
Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009; 38:187-195 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/74941012
Guidance notes for dental practitioners on the safe use of dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) equipment. HPA-CRCE-010.Chilton: HPA; 2010
Brown J, Jacobs R, Levring Jäghagen E Basic training requirements for the use of dental CBCT by dentists: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 43 https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20130291
Article
Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning has been carried out successfully using 2D dimensional imaging for many years. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides the clinician with 3D information which, in selected cases, may be beneficial in the management of difficult and complex cases.
The aim of this article is to outline the use of CBCT in orthodontic management, focusing on the current selection criteria (justification), the methods of dose reduction (optimization), as well as outlining the current guidance regarding reporting (evaluation) of CBCT scans.
The patient is generally either sitting or standing in the unit and positioned using light beam markers. Once correctly positioned, the patient is then immobilized to reduce movement artefact. The appropriate imaging parameters and volume size or field of view (FoV) are selected. The cone-shaped X-ray beam and the detector rotate around the patient, acquiring frames of data throughout the rotation. Typically, several hundred frames are acquired, and from this a 3D data set is reconstructed. Secondary reconstruction into axial, coronal and sagittal planes can then be made.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
What's included
- Up to 2 free articles per month
- New content available