Influence of scan setting selections on root canal visibility with cone beam CT

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 645-648

  Hassan, B A ^a   Payam, J ^a   Juyanda, B ^a   Van Der Stelt, P ^a   Wesselink, P R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Endodontics; Radiology; Root canal

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CADAVER; CANINE TOOTH; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; TOOTH PULP;

CADAVER; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CUSPID; DENTAL PULP CAVITY; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MANDIBLE; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED;

EID: 84870945857     PISSN: 0250832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/27670911     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E. The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 818-830.
2. Matherne RP, Angelopoulos C, Kulild JC, Tira D. Use of conebeam computed tomography to identify root canal systems in vitro. J Endod 2008; 34: 87-89.
3. Soǧur E, Baksi BG, Gröndahl HG. Imaging of root canal fillings: a comparison of subjective image quality between limited conebeam CT, storage phosphor and film radiography. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 179-185.
4. Bassam H. Reliability of periapical radiographs and orthopantomograms in detection of tooth root protrusion in the maxillary sinus: correlation results with cone beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2010; 1: e6.
5. Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, White SC, Suetens P. Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129: 222-226.
6. 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.
7. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 265-269.
8. Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Comparison of five cone beam computed tomography systems for the detection of vertical root fractures. J Endod 2010; 36: 126-129.
9. Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja Berti S, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 303-310.
10. Hatcher DC. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141: 3S-6S.
11. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-730.
12. Van Daatselaar AN, van der Stelt PF, Weenen J. Effect of number of projections on image quality of local CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 361-369.
13. Goldman LW. Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 2007; 35: 213-225.
14. Mora MA, Mol A, Tyndall DA, Rivera EM. Effect of the number of basis images on the detection of longitudinal tooth fractures using local computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36: 382-386.
15. Martin CJ, Sutton DG, Sharp PF. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50: 1-19.
16. Farman AG. ALARA still applies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 100: 395-397.
17. Schulze R, Heil U, Grob D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artifacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-273.
18. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38: 609-625.
19. 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.