Asurvey of the first 6 years of experience with cone beam CT scanning in a teaching hospital orthodontic department

Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 14-21

  Dobbyn, Lorna Mary ^a   Morrison, Joanna Faye ^b   Brocklebank, Laetitia Mary ^b   Chung, Lucy Lai King ^b  

^a Merlin Park University Hospital   (Ireland)

^b GLASGOW DENTAL HOSPITAL AND SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Orthodontics; Resorption

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL PROCEDURE; HUMAN; JAW; ORTHODONTICS; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TEACHING HOSPITAL; TOOTH DISEASE; UNITED KINGDOM; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL SERVICE, HOSPITAL; HOSPITALS, TEACHING; HUMANS; JAW; ORTHODONTICS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROOT RESORPTION; SCOTLAND;

EID: 84876793421     PISSN: 14653125     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/1465313312Y.0000000041     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 245-48.
2. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 1558-64.
3. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am 2008; 52: 707-30.
4. Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, Araki M, Kawashima S, Terekado M. A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95: 371-77.
5. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, van Dijck E, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71: 461-68.
6. Suomalainen A, Kiljunen T, Kaser Y, Peltola J, Kortesniemi M. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 367-78.
7. 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: 187-95.
8. Radiation Protection: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, Provisional Guidelines. SEDENTEXCT. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2009, 1-84 (v1. May 2009).
9. Radiation Protection: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Evidence Based Guidelines. SEDENTEXCT. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2011, 1-139.
10. Health Protection Agency (HPA). Guidance on the Safe Use of Dental Cone Beam CT (Computed Tomography Equipment). HPA (HPA-CRCE-010). Chilton: HPA, 2010, 1-64.
11. European Commission. Radiation Protection 136. European Guidelines on Radiation Protection in Dental Radiology. The Safe Use of Radiographs in Dental Practice. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004.
12. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-43.
13. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, BrooksSL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 219-26.
14. Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y, et al. Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 79-85.
15. Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008; 133: 640. e1-5.
16. 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: 773-82.
17. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, et al.; The SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-71.
18. Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 35-40.
19. Valentin J. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 60. Ann ICRP 1991; 21: 1-201.
20. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37: 309-18.
21. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991; 21: 1-201.
22. Wriedt S, Jaklin J, Al-Nawas B, Wehrbein H. Impacted upper canines: examination and treatment proposal based on 3D versus 2D diagnosis. J Orofac Orthop 2011; 73: 28-40.
23. Oberoi S, Knueppel S. Three-dimensional assessment of impacted canines and root resorption using cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113: 260-67.
24. Haney E, Gansky SA, Lee JS, et al. Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 137: 590-97.
25. Ericson S, Kurol J. Radiographic examination of ectopically erupting maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987; 91: 483-92.
26. Ericson S, Kurol J. Resorption of incisors after ectopic eruption of maxillary canines: A CT study. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 415-423.