Literature DB >> 18849696

Cone-beam imaging in dentistry.

Stuart C White1.   

Abstract

Cone-beam imaging has gained broad acceptance in dentistry in the last 5 years. The purpose of this review is to describe the use in dentistry and consider issues requiring further development. Cone-beam machines emit an x-ray beam shaped liked a cone rather than a fan as in conventional computed tomography (CT) machines. After this beam passes through the patient the remnant beam is captured on an amorphous silicon flat panel or image intensifier/charge-coupled device (CCD) detector. The beam diameter ranges from 4 to 30 cm and exposes the head in one pass around the patient capturing from 160 to 599 basis images. These images are used to compute a volume from which planar or curved reconstructions can be extracted in any orientation. Voxels are isotropic and can be as small as 0.125 mm. 3-D images of bone or soft tissue surfaces can also be generated. In dentistry the most common indications for cone-beam imaging are assessment of the jaws for placement of dental implants, evaluation of the temporomandibular joints for osseous degenerative changes, examination of teeth and facial structures for orthodontic treatment planning, evaluation of the proximity of lower wisdom teeth to the mandibular nerve prior to extraction, and evaluation of teeth and bone for signs of infections, cysts, or tumors. Cone-beam images have largely replaced conventional tomography for these tasks. The effective dose from cone-beam imaging ranges from 6 to 477 microSv. The cost of the equipment is relatively low, about $150,000 to $300,000. Issues to be considered are the training of individuals making and interpreting cone-beam images, as well as means to further reduce patient exposure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18849696     DOI: 10.1097/01.HP.0000326340.81581.1a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   1.316


  36 in total

1.  Radiological examination of the articular eminence morphology using cone beam CT.

Authors:  M A Sümbüllü; F Cağlayan; H M Akgül; A B Yilmaz
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Dental students' knowledge and attitudes towards cone beam computed tomography in Turkey.

Authors:  K Kamburoglu; S Kursun; Z Z Akarslan
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Accuracy of CBCT measurements of a human skull.

Authors:  Kivanç Kamburoğlu; Eray Kolsuz; Hakan Kurt; Cenk Kiliç; Tuncer Özen; Candan Semra Paksoy
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries.

Authors:  B Senel; K Kamburoglu; O Uçok; S P Yüksel; T Ozen; H Avsever
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography.

Authors:  F Jadu; M J Yaffe; E W N Lam
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Anomalous morphology of an ectopic tooth in the maxillary sinus on three-dimensional computed tomography images.

Authors:  Yee-Tak Alta Lai; Yiu Shiobhon Luk; Kai-Hung Fung
Journal:  J Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2013-02-01

Review 7.  Pre- and postoperative management techniques. Before and after. Part 2: the removal of third molars.

Authors:  J Mansoor
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 8.  Quality assurance phantoms for cone beam computed tomography: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Marcus V L de Oliveira; Ann Wenzel; Paulo S F Campos; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 2.419

9.  Accuracy of linear and volumetric measurements of artificial ERR cavities by using CBCT images obtained at 4 different voxel sizes and measured by using 4 different software: an ex vivo research.

Authors:  Gül Sönmez; Cemre Koç; Kıvanç Kamburoğlu
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 2.419

10.  Is ultrasonography sufficient for evaluation of mental foramen?

Authors:  Fatma Çağlayan; Muhammed Akif Sümbüllü; Hayati Murat Akgül
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 2.419

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.