Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 93–96 | Cite as

Cone-beam computed tomography: a new low dose, high resolution imaging technique of the wrist, presentation of three cases with technique

  • Jens De CockEmail author
  • Koen Mermuys
  • Jean Goubau
  • Simon Van Petegem
  • Brecht Houthoofd
  • Jan W. Casselman
Case Report


Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a relatively new technique. It generates a 3D image by emitting a pulsed cone-shaped X-ray beam. CBCT has become a very useful and widely used technique for dentomaxillofacial imaging over the last decade. It provides clear, high resolution multiplanar reconstruction images. Previously, the images could only be generated while the patient was sitting with his/her head fixed in position. With the presented new generation CBCT (NewTom 5G, QR, Verona, Italy), a more free positioning of the patient, either lying or sitting, is possible. In this way, skeletal imaging of various body parts becomes possible. In this article we present three clinical cases of CBCT imaging of the wrist, describe the background of the technique, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of CBCT imaging.


Cone-beam computed tomography Wrist Methods Fractures Bone 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta R, Bartling SH, Basu SK, et al. Experimental flat-panel high-spatial-resolution volume CT of the temporal bone. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25:1417–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pasquet G, Cavezian R. Diagnostic means using oral and maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: results. J Radiol. 2009;90(5 Pt 2):618–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hauret L, Hodez C. A new modality for dentomaxillofacial imaging: cone beam CT. J Radiol. 2009;90(5 Pt 2):604–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell Jr WE. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(1):24–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hein E, Rogalla P, Klingebiel R, Hamm B. Low-dose CT of the paranasal sinuses with eye lens protection: effect on image quality and radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1693–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruivo J, Mermuys K, Bacher K, Kuhweide R, Offeciers E, Casselman JW. Cone beam computed tomography, a low-dose imaging technique in the postoperative assessment of cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:299–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, et al. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, Newtom 3 G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:219–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 1: physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(6):1088–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Offergeld C, Kromeier J, Aschendorff A, et al. Rotational tomography of the normal and reconstructed middle ear in temporal bones: an experimental study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;264:345–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leng S, Zambelli J, Tolakanahalli R, et al. Streaking artifacts reduction in four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. Med Phys. 2008;35(10):4649–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, et al. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose cone beam CT. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56:413–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):35–40. Epub 2008 Oct 13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koong B. Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(11):1201–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mermuys K, Vanslambrouck K, Goubau J, Steyaert L, Casselman JW. Use of digital tomosynthesis: case report of a suspected scaphoid fracture and technique. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37(6):569–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens De Cock
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Koen Mermuys
    • 1
  • Jean Goubau
    • 2
  • Simon Van Petegem
    • 1
  • Brecht Houthoofd
    • 1
  • Jan W. Casselman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyA.Z. St.-Jan HospitalBrugesBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryA.Z. St.-Jan HospitalBrugesBelgium
  3. 3.WommelgemBelgium

Personalised recommendations