To measure the reliability of tooth length measurements taken using dental pantomograms (DPT), long cone periapical radiographs (PR), and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare their effective radiation dose.
Subjects and methods
A model containing sixteen anterior teeth was used to simulate a patient undergoing fixed appliance treatment. PRs were taken at standardized vertical angulations to the occlusal plane (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20°) using conventional and digital techniques. DPT and CBCT images were also taken. Measurements of radiation dosages were used to estimate a risk benefit analysis for each of the techniques.
Results
DPT consistently overestimated tooth lengths by 2 mm or more [mean: 2·34 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1·4–3·3 mm]. CBCT consistently underestimated tooth length (mean: −0·89 mm; 95% CI: −0·44 to −1·33 mm). PRs taken at 90° angulation closely resembled the actual tooth length (mean: −0·14 mm; 95% CI: −0·64 to 0·37 mm), but overestimation occurred with increasing PR film angulation. The radiation dosages ranged widely: DPT plus eight PRs that would be necessary to assess all teeth and root length of the upper and lower labial segments amounted to 23 μSv. Radiation dose from CBCT ranged from 17·8 to 60 μSv, depending on equipment and settings.
McFaddenWM, EngstromC, EngstromH, AnholmJM. A study of the relationship between incisor intrusion and root shortening. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1989; 96: 390–39.
6.
CostopoulosG, NandaR.An evaluation of root resorption incident to orthodontic intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1996; 109: 543–48.
7.
BrezniakNA, GorenS, ZoiznerR.The Accuracy of the Cementoenamel Junction Identification on Periapical Films. Angle Orthod2004; 74: 496–500.
LundH, GrondhalK.Cone beam computed tomography for assessment of root length and marginal bone level during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod2010; 80: 466–73.
11.
LudlowJB, Davies-LudlowLE, WhiteSC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc2008; 139: 1237–43.
12.
BarrJH, GronP.Palate contour as a limit factor in intraoral X-ray technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol1959; 12: 459–72.
13.
van ParysK, AartmanIH, KuitertR, ZentnerA.Relationship between dental anomalies and orthodontic root resorption of upper incisors. Eur J Orthod201234: 571–74.
14.
GeglerA, FontanellaV.In vitro evaluation of a method for obtaining periapical radiographs for diagnosis of external apical root resorption. Eur J Orthod2008; 30: 315–19.
15.
GherME, RichardsonAC. The accuracy of dental radiographic techniques used for evaluation of implant fixture placement. Int J Periodont Rest Dent1995; 15: 268–83.
16.
StramotasS, GeentyJP, DarendelilerMA, ByloffF, BergerJ, PetoczP.The reliability of crown-root ratio, linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs. Clin Orthod Res2000; 3: 182–91.
17.
SameshimaGT, AsgarifarKO. Assessment of root resorption and root shape: periapical vs. panoramic films. Angle Orhod2001; 71: 185–89.
18.
RushtonVE, HornerK, WorthingtonHV. The quality of panoramic radiographs in a sample of general dental practices. Br Dent J1999; 186: 630–33.
19.
SherrardJF, RossouwPE, BensonBW, CarrilloR, BuschangPH. Accuracy and reliability of tooth and root lengths measured on cone-beam computed tomographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2010; 137: S100–08.
20.
KwongJC, PalomoJM, LandersMA, FigueroaA, HansMG. Image quality produced by different cone-beam computed tomography settings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2008; 133: 317–27.
21.
BaumgaertelS, PalomoJM, PalomoL, HansdMG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2009; 136: 19–28.
22.
PeriagoDR, ScarfeWC, MoshiriM, ScheetzJP, SilveiraAM, FarmanAG. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam ct derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program. Angle Orthod2008; 78: 387–95.
23.
RobertsJA, DrageNA, DaviesJ, ThomasDW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol2009; 82: 35–40.
24.
SuomalainenA, KiljunenT, KaserY, PeltolaJ, KortesniemiM.Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol2009; 38: 367–78.
25.
LoubeleM, BogaertsR, van DijckE.Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol2009; 71: 461–68.
26.
HarwoodA.Field limitation to ‘dentition only’ in panoramic radiography for orthodontic patient. A Project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master of Science degree in dental and Maxillofacial Radiology, King's College London Dental Institute, London, UK, 2009.
27.
HirschE, WolfU, HeinickeF, SilvaMA. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol2008; 37: 268–73.
DaviesJ, JohnsonB, DrageNA. Effective doses from cone beam CT investigation of the jaws. Dentomaxillofac Radiol2012; 41: 30–36.
30.
NganDC, KharbandaOP, GeentyJP, DarendelilerMA. Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Aust Orthod J2003; 19: 67–75.
31.
GijbelsF, SanderinkG, WyattJ.Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography. Br Dent J2004; 197: 149–52.
32.
SedentexCT. Radiation radiation protection:cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: Evidence based guidelines, 2011.
