Advertisement

Cone-beam computed tomography imaging of dentoalveolar and mandibular fractures

  • Ulkem Aydin
  • Ozlem GormezEmail author
  • Derya Yildirim
Review Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Three-dimensional imaging methods have an important role in the diagnosis of dentomaxillofacial fractures that can not be seen on the plain films. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is one of the three-dimensional imaging methods and has facilitated dental professionals’ access to cross-sectional imaging. CBCT units allow different technical parameters and the data acquired by CBCT, can be reformatted. Osseous structures are correctly examined with this technique but the technique is not useful for the examination of soft tissues. Therefore, the purpose of its use should be based on the expected diagnostic gain. The aim of this review is to present the use of CBCT with different multi-planar reformatted sections and three-dimensional reconstructions of dentoalveolar and mandibular fractures.

Keywords

Cone-beam computed tomography Maxillofacial injuries Fractures 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human rights statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gassner R, Bösch R, Tuli T, Emshoff R. Prevalence of dental trauma in 6000 patients with facial injuries: implications for prevention. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;87(1):27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scarfe WC. Imaging of maxillofacial trauma: evolutions and emerging revolutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;100(2):75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malara P, Malara B, Drugacz J. Characteristics of maxillofacial injuries resulting from road traffic accidents—a 5 year review of the case records from Department of Maxillofacial Surgery in Katowice, Poland. Head Face Med. 2006;2:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kamulegeya A, Lakor F, Kabenge K. Oral maxillofacial fractures seen at a Ugandan tertiary hospital: a six-month prospective study. Clinics. 2009;64(9):843–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shintaku WH, Venturin JS, Azevedo B, Noujeim M. Applications of cone-beam computed tomography in fractures of the maxillofacial complex. Dent Traumatol. 2009;25(4):358–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arabion HR, Tabrizi R, Aliabadi E, Gholami M, Zarei K. A retrospective analysis of maxillofacial trauma in Shiraz, Iran: a 6-year-study of 768 patients (2004–2010). J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci. 2014;15(1):15–21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yilmaz SY, Misirlioglu M, Adisen MZ. A diagnosis of maxillary sinus fracture with cone-beam CT: case report and literature review. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2014;7(2):85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Özdede M, Sarıkır Ç, Akarslan Z, Peker İ. Maksillofasiyal fraktürlerin konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2016;26(1):8–14.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yaşar M, Bayram A, Doğan M, Sağit M, Kaya A, Özcan İ, et al. Retrospective analysis of surgically managed maxillofacial fractures in Kayseri Training and Research Hospital. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;54(1):5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohenca N, Simon JH, Roges R, Morag Y, Malfaz JM. Clinical indications for digital imaging in dento-alveolar trauma. Part 1: traumatic injuries. Dent Traumatol. 2007;23(2):95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ilgüy D, Ilgüy M, Fisekcioglu E, Bayirli G. Detection of jaw and root fractures using cone beam computed tomography: a case report. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38(3):169–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fox LA, Vannier MW, West OC, Wilson AJ, Baran GA, Pilgram TK. Diagnostic performance of CT, MPR and 3DCT imaging in maxillofacial trauma. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1995;19(5):385–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schuknecht B, Graetz K. Radiologic assessment of maxillofacial, mandibular, and skull base trauma. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(3):560–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sirin Y, Guven K, Horasan S, Sencan S. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheep mandibular condyle fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(6):336–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eskandarlou A, Poorolajal J, Talaeipour AR, Talebi S, Talaeipour M. Comparison between cone beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography in diagnostic accuracy of maxillofacial fractures in dried human skull: an in vitro study. Dent Traumatol. 2014;30(2):162–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lam EWN. Trauma. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 562–81.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aydin U, Gormez O, Yildirim D. Cone-beam computed tomography findings of dentomaxillofacial fractures. Eur Congr Radiol. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1594/ecr2016/C-0711.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A. Current concepts in maxillofacial imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66(3):396–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choudhary AB, Motwani MB, Degwekar SS, Bhowate RR, Banode PJ, Yadav AO, et al. Utility of digital volume tomography in maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(6):135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaeppler G, Cornelius CP, Ehrenfeld M, Mast G. Diagnostic efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography for mandibular fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116(1):98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gohel A, Oda M, Katkar AS, Sakai O. Multidetector row computed tomography in maxillofacial imaging. Dent Clin N Am. 2018;62(3):453–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nasseh I, Al-Rawi W. cone beam computed tomography. Dent Clin N Am. 2018;62(3):361–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohnen M, Kemper J, Möbes O, Pawelzik J, Mödder U. Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(3):634–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72(1):75–80.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. 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(6):609–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dölekoğlu S, Fişekçioğlu E, Ilgüy D, Ilgüy M, Bayirli G. Diagnosis of jaw and dentoalveolar fractures in a traumatized patient with cone beam computed tomography. Dent Traumatol. 2010;26(2):200–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ma RH, Ge ZP, Li G. Detection accuracy of root fractures in cone-beam computed tomography images: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. 2016;49(7):646–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neubauer J, Neubauer C, Gerstmair A, Krauss T, Reising K, Zajonc H, et al. comparison of the radiation dose from cone beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in examinations of the hand. Rofo. 2016;188(5):488–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chindasombatjaroen J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Maeda Y, Furukawa S. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiol. 2011;27(2):114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):265–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Crop A, Casselman J, Van Hoof T, Dierens M, Vereecke E, Bossu N, et al. Analysis of metal artifact reduction tools for dental hardware in CT scans of the oral cavity: kVp, iterative reconstruction, dual-energy CT, metal artifact reduction software: does it make a difference? Neuroradiology. 2015;57(8):841–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xi Y, Jin Y, De Man B, Wang G. High-kVp assisted metal artifact reduction for X-ray computed tomography. IEEE Access. 2016;4:4769–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seeram E. Computed tomography: a technical review. Radiol Technol. 2018;89(3):279CT–302CT.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am. 2008;52(4):707–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Farman AG, Scarfe WC. Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;130(2):257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, Akiyama Y, Honjoya T, Ejima K, et al. Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36(8):465–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Panzarella FK, Junqueira JL, Oliveira LB, de Araújo NS, Costa C. Accuracy assessment of the axial images obtained from cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(6):369–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Schutyser F, Debaveye D, Bogaerts R, et al. Radiation dose vs. image quality for low-dose CT protocols of the head for maxillofacial surgery and oral implant planning. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;117(1–3):211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ballanti F, Lione R, Fiaschetti V, Fanucci E, Cozza P. Low-dose CT protocol for orthodontic diagnosis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2008;9(2):65–70.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    European Commission. Radiation protection no. 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. A report prepared by the SEDENTEXCT project. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2012. (Available from http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf)
  41. 41.
    Brito-Júnior M, Santos LA, Faria-e-Silva AL, Pereira RD, Sousa-Neto MD. Ex vivo evaluation of artifacts mimicking fracture lines on cone-beam computed tomography produced by different root canal sealers. Int Endod J. 2014;47(1):26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45:263–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ. Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140197.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone-beam computed tomography: volume acquisition. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 185–98.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yoo S, Yin FF. Dosimetric feasibility of cone-beam CT-based treatment planning compared to CT-based treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(5):1553–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mah P, Reeves TE, McDavid WD. Deriving Hounsfield units using grey levels in cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39(6):323–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Angelopoulos C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2012;20(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gonzalez SM. Implants. In: Gonzalez SM, editor. Interpretation basics of cone beam computed tomography. 1st ed. New Jersey: Wiley; 2014. p. 167–75.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S. Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31(2):126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kajan ZD, Taromsari M. Value of cone beam CT in detection of dental root fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Moudi E, Haghanifar S, Madani Z, Alhavaz A, Bijani A, Bagheri M. Assessment of vertical root fracture using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(1):37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brooks SL. Prescribing diagnostic imaging. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 259–70.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kositbowornchai S, Sikram S, Nuansakul R, Thinkhamrop B. Root fracture detection on digital images: effect of the zoom function. Dent Traumatol. 2003;19(3):154–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Avsever H, Gunduz K, Orhan K, Uzun İ, Ozmen B, Egrioglu E, et al. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of horizontal root fractures: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(1):285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moule AJ, Kahler B. Diagnosis and management of teeth with vertical root fractures. Aust Dent J. 1999;44(2):75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Aydın Ü. Vertikal kök kırıkları: klinik ve radyografik bulgular, risk faktörleri. ADO J Clin Sci. 2012;5(4):1019–26.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Long H, Zhou Y, Ye N, Liao L, Jian F, Wang Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT for tooth fractures: a meta-analysis. J Dent. 2014;42(3):240–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Özer SY. Detection of vertical root fractures by using cone beam computed tomography with variable voxel sizes in an in vitro model. J Endod. 2011;37(1):75–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Da Silveira PF, Vizzotto MB, Liedke GS, da Silveira HLD, Montagner F, da Silveira HE. Detection of vertical root fractures by conventional radiographic examination and cone beam computed tomography—an in vitro analysis. Dent Traumatol. 2013;29(1):41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bragatto FP, Filho LI, Kasuya AVB, Chicarelli M, Queiroz AF, Takeshita WM, Iwaki LCV. Accuracy in the diagnosis of vertical root fractures, external root resorptions, and root perforations using cone-beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes of acquisition. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(6):573–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Parrone MT, Bechara B, Deahl ST 2nd, Ruparel NB, Katkar R, Noujeim M. Cone beam computed tomography image optimization to detect root fractures in endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro (phantom) study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;123(5):613–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Corbella S, Del Fabbro M, Tamse A, Rosen E, Tsesis I, Taschieri S. Cone beam computed tomography for the diagnosis of vertical root fractures: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;118(5):593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Salineiro FCS, Kobayashi-Velasco S, Braga MM, Cavalcanti MGP. Radiographic diagnosis of root fractures: a systematic review, meta-analyses and sources of heterogeneity. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(8):20170400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Baageel TM, Allah EH, Bakalka GT, Jadu F, Yamany I, Jan AM, Bogari DF, Alhazzazi TY. Vertical root fracture: biological effects and accuracy of diagnostic imaging methods. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(Suppl 2):S93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(4):813–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Brüllmann D, Schulze RKW. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications—what do we know today? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Varshosaz M, Tavakoli MA, Mostafavi M, Baghban AA. Comparison of conventional radiography with cone beam computed tomography for detection of vertical root fractures: an in vitro study. J Oral Sci. 2010;52(4):593–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wang P, Yan XB, Lui DG, Zhang WL, Zhang Y, Ma XC. Detection of dental root fractures by using cone-beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):290–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pittayapat P, Galiti D, Huang Y, Dreesen K, Schreurs M, Souza PC, et al. An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone-beam computed tomography: volume preparation. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2014. p. 199–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Dentomaxillofacial RadiologyCyprus Health and Social Sciences University School of Dental SciencesMorphouNorth Cyprus
  2. 2.Department of Dentomaxillofacial RadiologySuleyman Demirel University Faculty of DentistryIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations