Effect of electric potential and current on mandibular linear measurements in cone beam CT

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 578-582

  Panmekiate, S ^a   Apinhasmit, W ^a   Petersson, A ^b  

^a CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b MALMÖ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Dental implants; Mandible

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CADAVER; CEPHALOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; EDENTULOUSNESS; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRICITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; POWER SUPPLY; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANATOMY, CROSS-SECTIONAL; CADAVER; CEPHALOMETRY; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLIES; ELECTRICITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAW, EDENTULOUS; MALE; MANDIBLE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION;

EID: 84866619387     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/51664704     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Worthington P. Injury to the inferior alveolar nerve during implant placement: A formula for protection of the patient and clinician. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 731-734.
2. Khawaja N, Renton T. Case studies on implant removal influencing the resolution of inferior alveolar nerve injury. Br Dent J 2009; 206: 365-370.
3. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation of the mandibular canal by different radiographic techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992; 3: 90-97.
4. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6: 96-103.
5. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: A prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 81-85.
6. Angelopoulos C, Aghaloo T. Imaging technology in implant diagnosis. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 141-158.
7. Kim YK, Park JY, Kim SG, Kim JS, Kim JD. Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for preoperative assessment of dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 76-83.
8. Stella JP, Tharanon W. A precise radiographic method to determine the location of the inferior alveolar canal in the posterior edentulous mandible: Implications for dental implants. Part 2: Clinical application. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5: 23-29.
9. Ekestubbe A, Grondahl HG. Reliability of spiral tomography with the ScanoraH technique for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993; 4: 195-202.
10. Tyndall DA, Brooks SL. Selection criteria for dental implant site imaging: A position paper of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89: 630-637.
11. Harris D, Buser D, Dula K, Grondahl K, Haris D, Jacobs R, et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration in Trinity College Dublin. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 566-570.
12. Carrafiello G, Dizonno M, Colli V, Strocchi S, Pozzi Taubert S, Leonardi A, et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol Med 2010; 115: 600-611.
13. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg OralMed Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 106-114.
14. Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y, Sakaino R, Tsuchida R, Iwai K, et al. Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 79-85.
15. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71: 461-468.
16. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 228-231.
17. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 10-17.
18. Martin CJ, Sutton DG, Sharp PF. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50: 1-19.
19. Farman AG. ALARA still applies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 100: 395-397.
20. Palomo JM, Rao PS, Hans MG. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: 773-782.
21. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-271.
22. Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, Sakamaki K, Harata Y, Sakaino R, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial Xray cone beam CT scanner (CB MercuRay): System configuration and physical properties. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 51-59.
23. Kwong JC, Palomo JM, Landers MA, Figueroa A, Hans MG. Image quality produced by different cone-beam computed tomography settings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 317-327.
24. Sur J, Seki K, Koizumi H, Nakajima K, Okano T. Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: E29-e33.
25. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyzer W, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 309-318.
26. Martin CJ, Sharp PF, Sutton DG. Measurement of image quality in diagnostic radiology. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50: 21-38.
27. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York, NY: Interscience Publications; 1940.
28. Lou L, Lagravere MO, Compton S, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomography (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: A systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104: 402-411.
29. Ritter L, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Dreiseidler T, Scheer M, Keeve E, et al. The influence of body mass index, age, implants, and dental restorations on image quality of cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: E108-e116.
30. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Schutyser F, Debaveye D, Bogaerts R, et al. Radiation dose vs. image quality for low-dose CT protocols of the head for maxillofacial surgery and oral implant planning. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 117: 211-216.