Larissa Pereira Lagos de Melo1, Anne Caroline Costa Oenning2, Mariana Rocha Nadaes2, Yuri Nejaim2, Frederico Sampaio Neves3, Matheus Lima Oliveira2, Deborah Queiroz Freitas2. 1. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: Melo.lpl@gmail.com. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Propedeutics and Integrated Clinic, Division of Oral Radiology, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Bahia, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the influence of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars and their relationship to the mandibular canal. STUDY DESIGN: Eight dry human mandibles with 13 mandibular third molars were scanned with one CBCT unit. Voxel size (0.2 and 0.3 mm), field of view (FOV) size (12 × 8.5 cm and 5 × 5 cm), and number of basis images (450 and 720) were the variables studied. Two examiners evaluated the images, and the resulting data were compared through McNemar, McNemar-Bowker, and Student t tests. Additionally, dosimetry was determined for all protocols tested, and radiation doses were compared through analysis of variance. RESULTS: The variables did not influence evaluation of mandibular third molars, except for voxel size, when assessing contact between the tooth and the mandibular canal (P = .021). Although FOV and number of basis images affected radiation dose, voxel size did not. CONCLUSIONS: FOV size and number of basis images did not influence the evaluation of mandibular third molars and their relationship to the mandibular canal in the CBCT unit used. Conversely, smaller voxel size affected the assessment of contact between the tooth and the mandibular canal. In units in which voxel size does not influence radiation dose, the most appropriate CBCT protocol is the one using a smaller voxel size and delivering the lowest radiation dose to the patient.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the influence of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars and their relationship to the mandibular canal. STUDY DESIGN: Eight dry human mandibles with 13 mandibular third molars were scanned with one CBCT unit. Voxel size (0.2 and 0.3 mm), field of view (FOV) size (12 × 8.5 cm and 5 × 5 cm), and number of basis images (450 and 720) were the variables studied. Two examiners evaluated the images, and the resulting data were compared through McNemar, McNemar-Bowker, and Student t tests. Additionally, dosimetry was determined for all protocols tested, and radiation doses were compared through analysis of variance. RESULTS: The variables did not influence evaluation of mandibular third molars, except for voxel size, when assessing contact between the tooth and the mandibular canal (P = .021). Although FOV and number of basis images affected radiation dose, voxel size did not. CONCLUSIONS: FOV size and number of basis images did not influence the evaluation of mandibular third molars and their relationship to the mandibular canal in the CBCT unit used. Conversely, smaller voxel size affected the assessment of contact between the tooth and the mandibular canal. In units in which voxel size does not influence radiation dose, the most appropriate CBCT protocol is the one using a smaller voxel size and delivering the lowest radiation dose to the patient.
Authors: Anne Caroline Oenning; Benjamin Salmon; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Laura Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo; Ivo Lambrichts; Gerard Sanderink; Ruben Pauwels; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Niels Belmans; Anne Caroline Oenning; Benjamin Salmon; Bjorn Baselet; Kevin Tabury; Stéphane Lucas; Ivo Lambrichts; Marjan Moreels; Reinhilde Jacobs; Sarah Baatout Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 3.525