Advertisement

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 520–530 | Cite as

Effect of Milliamperage Reduction on Pre-surgical Implant Planning Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography by Surgeons of Varying Experience

  • N. El Sahili
  • S. David-Tchouda
  • S. Thoret
  • I. Nasseh
  • A. Berberi
  • T. Fortin
Original Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Differences in CBCT units and the lack of standardization result in exposure to radiation doses beyond what is required for diagnostic purposes, especially when planning the surgical placement of dental implants.

Aim

To assess the influence of low- and high-dose milliamperage settings on CBCT images for objective and subjective implant planning among senior specialists (5 years of experience) and juniors (fresh graduates).

Materials and Methods

Two dry skulls (4 hemi-maxillary segments of the maxilla and 4 hemi-maxillary segments of the mandible) were scanned under low (2 mA) and high (6.3 mA) dosage settings using the Carestream CS 9300 machine. Cross-sectional slices of both image qualities were evaluated by the 5 seniors and the 5 juniors for subjective image utility for implant planning and for objective linear bone measurements.

Results

There were no significant differences in bone measurements taken on high- or low-dose images by all seniors and by the majority of juniors (p > 0.05). In qualitative image assessments, there was independence between assessment and image quality for almost all observers. For planning posterior mandibular implant placement, increased dosage improved concordance and kappa values between low- and high-dose images for senior observers (from K = 0.287 at low dose to K = 0.718 at high does) but not for juniors (K = 0.661 and K = 0.509 for low and high dose, respectively).

Conclusion

Reduction in milliamperage did not affect diagnostic image quality for objective bone measurements and produced sufficient concordance for qualitative assessment. Judicious optimization of milliamperage settings based on individual diagnostic requirements can result in significant dose reduction without compromising diagnostic decision-making.

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography Implant-placement planning Image resolution Radiation dose alteration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mrs. Sophie THORET, statistician at the Grenoble University Hospital Innovation Unit and Dr. Ali JANBAIN of the Graduate School of Science and Technology at the Lebanese University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest related to this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis I (1998) A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 8(9):1558–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fortin T, Champleboux G, Bianchi S, Buatois H, Coudert J (2002) Precision of transfer of preoperative planning for oral implants based on cone-beam CT-scan images through a robotic drilling machine. Clin Oral Implants Res 13(6):651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R (2014) Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 4(29 Suppl):55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scherer MD (2014) 0 Presurgical implant-site assessment and restoratively driven digital planning. Dent Clin North Am 58(3):561–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pauwels R, Theodorakou C, Walker A et al (2012) Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 7:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Ekrish AA (2012) Effect of exposure time on the accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions in dry skulls. Saudi Dent J 24(3):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morant J, Salvadó M, Hernández-Girón I et al (2013) Dosimetry of a cone beam CT device for oral and maxillofacial radiology using Monte Carlo techniques and ICRP adult reference computational phantoms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42(3):925–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Commission (2012) Radiation protection N° 172: cone beam CT For dental and maxillofacial radiology—evidence-based guidelines. A report prepared by the SEDENTEXCT project www.sedentexct.eu. Directorate-general for energy, directorate D—nuclear energy, unit D4—radiation protection. http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf
  9. 9.
    Jaju PP, Jaju SP (2015) Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent 45(4):263–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horner K (2013) Cone-beam computed tomography: time for an evidence-based approach. Prim Dent J 2(1):22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goulston R, Davies J, Horner K, Murphy F (2016) Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 45(3):201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S et al (2012) Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 113(6):817–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demeslay J, Vergez S, Serrano E et al (2016) Morphological concordance between CBCT and MDCT: a paranasal sinus-imaging anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat 38(1):71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81(2):267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu J, Reh D, Carey JP, Mahesh M, Siewerdsen J (2012) Technical assessment of a cone-beam CT scanner for otolaryngology imaging: image quality, dose, and technique protocols. Med Phys 39(8):4932–4942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sur J, Seki K, Koizumi H, Nakajima K, Okano T (2010) Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110(3):e29–e33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Vos W, Casselmann J, Swennen GR (2009) Cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the littérature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:609–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Commission (2012) Radiation protection N° 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology—evidence-based guidelines. A report prepared by the SEDENTEXCT project, Directorate D—nuclear energy, unit D4—radiation protection. http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf
  19. 19.
    Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S (2017) Determination of size-specific exposure settings in dental cone-beam CT. Eur Radiol 27(1):279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawood A, Brown J, Sauret-Jackson V, Purkayastha S (2012) Optimization of cone beam CT exposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(1):70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slagter KW, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ (2015) Inter-and intraobserver reproducibility of buccal bone measurements at dental implants with cone beam computed tomography in the esthetic region. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1(1):8Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S (2016) The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent 46(2):93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vasconcelos TV, Neves FS, de Freitas DQ, Campos PSF, Watanabe PCA (2014) Influence of the milliamperage settings on cone beam computed tomography imaging for implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(6):1364–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rehani M, Gupta R, Bartling S et al (2015) ICRP publication 129: Radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horner K, Jacobs R, Schulze R (2013) Dental CBCT equipment and performance issues. Radiat Prot Dosim 2153(2):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. El Sahili
    • 1
  • S. David-Tchouda
    • 2
  • S. Thoret
    • 3
  • I. Nasseh
    • 4
  • A. Berberi
    • 5
  • T. Fortin
    • 6
  1. 1.School of DentistryLebanese UniversityBeirutLebanon
  2. 2.Medico-economic Evaluation Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble, France/ThEMAS TIMC, UMR CNRS 5525Grenoble Joseph Fourier UniversityGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Investigation Clinical Center of Grenoble, INSERMGrenobleFrance
  4. 4.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of DentistryLebanese UniversityBeirutLebanon
  5. 5.Department of Oral and MaxilloFaciale Surgery, School of DentistryLebanese UniversityBeirutLebanon
  6. 6.Department of Oral SurgeryDental University of Lyon, University Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, France. UJF-Grenoble 1/CNRS/TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525GrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations