Sectional imaging is a useful tool for the dental practitioner, especially in the fields of oral surgery and implant dentistry. Until recently, the most readily available way to gain three-dimensional information has been computed tomography (CT). The main drawbacks to using this technique have been the substantial dose of ionising radiation and accessibility. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows 3D imaging to be made using bespoke equipment designed for the dental practice environment. Exposure to ionising radiation is substantially lower than that for an average x-ray CT scan, but in most cases is still greater than when other dental radiographs are taken. Various guidelines are now in the public domain and these are referenced within this review of CBCT. The concepts of appropriate selection criteria and optimisation of imaging parameters are stressed, along with compliance with the regulations relating to the use of ionising radiation—Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 and Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000—and training requirements.
SchwarzMS, RothmanSLG, ChafetzN, RhodesM.Computed tomography in dental implant surgery. Dent Clin North Am.1989;33:555–97.
2.
ElliesLG, HawkerPB.The prevalence of altered sensation associated with implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1993;8:674–9.
3.
Ten BruggenkateCM, KrekelerG, KraajenhagenHA, FoitzikC, OosterbeekHS.Haemorrhage of the floor of the mouth resulting from lingual perforation during implant placement: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.1993;8:329–34.
4.
TardieuPB, VrielinckL, EscolanoE, HenneM, TardieuAL.Computer-assisted implant placement: Scan template, Sim-Plant, SurgiGuide, and SAFE System. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent.2007;27:141–9.
5.
PendleburyME, HornerK, EatonK, editors. Selection Criteria for Dental Radiography (2nd ed). London: Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK); 2004.
6.
KohaviD, Bar-ZivJ, MarmaryY.Effect of axial plane deviation on cross-sectional height in reformatted computed tomography of the mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.1997;26:189–91.
7.
BarrettJF, KeatN.Artifacts in CT: Recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 200424:1679–91.
8.
ImamuraH, SatoH, MatsuuraT, IshikawaM, ZezeR.A comparative study of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of mandibular canals and cross-sectional areas in diagnosis prior to dental implant treatment. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.2004;6:75–81.
9.
SuomalainenA, VehmasT, KortesniemiM, RobinsonS, PeltolaJ.Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2008;37:10–17.
10.
GrayCF, RedpathTW, SmithFW, StaffRT.Advanced imaging: Magnetic resonance imaging in implant dentistry. A review. Clin Oral Implants Res.2003;14:18–27.
11.
MozzoP, ProcacciC, TacconiA, MartiniPT, AndreisIA.A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: Preliminary results. Eur Radiol.1998;8:1558–64.
12.
FeldkampIA, DavisLC, KressJW.Practical cone-beam algorithm. J Opt Soc Am A.1984;1:612–19.
13.
KatsumataA, HirukawaA, OkumuraS, NaitohM, FujishitaM, ArijiE, LanglaisRP.Effects of image artifacts on gray-value density in limited-volume cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2007;104:829–36.
14.
DraenertFG, CoppenrathE, HerzogP, MüllerS, Mueller-LisseUG.Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom® cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2007;36:198–203.
15.
NaitohM, NakaharaK, HiraiwaY, AimiyaH, GotohK, ArijiE.Imaging artifact and exposure conditions in limited-volume cone-beam computed tomography: Comparison between an image intensifier system and a flat panel detector. Oral Radiol.2006;22: 69–74.
16.
YuL, VriezeTJ, BruesewitzMR, KoflerJM, DeLoneDR, PallanchJF, . Dose and image quality evaluation of a dedicated cone-beam CT system for high-contrast neurologic applications. 2010 Am J Roent.2010;194:193–201.
17.
WatanabeH, HondaE, TetsumuraA, KurabayashiT.A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. Eur J Radiol.2009 Oct 8. [Epub ahead of print]
18.
OkanoT, HarataY, SugiharaY, SakainoR, TsuchidaR, IwaiK, . Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant placement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2009;38:79–85.
19.
Loftag-HansenS, Thilander-KlangA, EkestubbeA, HelmrotE, GrondahlK.Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D-Accuitomo and 3D-Accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2008;37:72–9.
20.
HirschE, WolfU, HeinickeF, SilvaMA.Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D-Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dentomax-illofac Radiol.2008;37:268–73.
21.
LoubeleM, BogaertsR, Van DijckE, PauwelsR, VanheusdenS, SuetensP, . Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol.2008;71:461–8.
22.
RobertsJA, DrageNA, DaviesJ, ThomasDW.Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol.2009;82:35–40.
23.
LudlowJB, Davies-LudlowLE, BrooksSL, HowertonWB.Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2006;35:219–26.
24.
LudlowJB, IvanovicM.Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2008;106:106–14.
25.
MahJK, DanforthRA, BumannA, HatcherD.Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2003;96:508–13.
26.
NganDC, KharbandaOP, GeentyJP, DarendelilerMA.Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Aust Orthod J.2003;19:67–75.
27.
SilvaMA, WolfU, HeinickeF, BurmannA, VisserH, HirschE.Cone beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dento-facial Orthop.2008;133:640.
28.
PalomoJM, RaoPS, HansMG.Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2008;105:773–82.
29.
Garcia-SilvaMA, WolfU, HeinickeF, GrundlerK, VisserH, HirschE.Effective dosages for recording Veraviewepocs 3D dental panoramic images: analogue film, digital and panoramic scout for CBCT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2008;106:571–7.
30.
HornerK, IslamM, FlygareL, TsiklakisK, WhaitesE.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.
31.
SEDENTEXCT.Radiation Protection: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Provisional Guidelines2009. Accessed (2010 Jul 19) at: www.SEDENTEXCT.eu
BornsteinMM, Wölner-HanssenAB, SendiP, Von ArxT.Comparison of intraoral radiography and limited cone beam computed tomography for the assessment of root-fractured permanent teeth. Dent Traumatol.2009;25:571–7.
34.
Health Protection Agency.Working Party on Dental Cone-Beam CT Equipment. Guidance Notes for Dental Practitioners on the Safe Use of Dental Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Equipment2010. (In press).
