Advertisement

History, Technique, and Safety

  • Farah MasoodEmail author
  • Onur Kadioglu
  • G. Fräns Currier
Chapter

Abstract

The scope of dental imaging has been greatly expanded with the invention of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The everyday functionality of dental practice, especially for dental specialties like orthodontics and oral surgery, has certainly changed with this radiographic technology for treatment planning and evaluation. The discovery of X-rays was made by Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen in 1895, who was a known physicist for his work. He won a Nobel Prize in 1901 for this discovery. Ever since this revolution, constant technologic advancements have been made in the field of dental radiology that had resulted in improving the diagnostic accuracy and reducing the radiation exposure in every day dental practice. In dentistry, conventional two-dimensional (2-D) radiographic imaging has been widely used. However, the conventional radiographic images have limitations like inherent magnification, distortion, superimposition of structures, and lack of depth for three-dimensional anatomical objects. Over the years, the technology has improved tremendously in terms of image quality and radiation dose. With CBCT, the visualization of structures is possible with much clarity and without superimposition. The technology has shown a profound impact on the dental practice with its widespread applications.

Keywords

CBCT Cone beam computed tomography Radiation safety Doses 

References

  1. 1.
    Dawood A, Patel S, Brown J. Cone beam CT in dental practice. Br Dent J. 2009;207:23–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zoller JE, Neugebauer J. Cone-beam volumetric imaging in dental, oral and maxillofacial medicine: fundamentals, diagnostics and treatment planning. Batavia , IL: Quintessence Publishing Co. Ltd; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003;6:31–6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.259.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH. Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2000;27(6):1311–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tamimi DF, Koenig A-E, Rathi S, Bajunaid S, Angle C. Specialty imaging TM: dental implants. Salt Lake City, UT: Amirsys Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am. 2008;52:707–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation protection: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology provisional guidelines 2009. 1. 2009. http://www.sedentexct.eu. Accessed 10 Jun 2013.
  8. 8.
    White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 7th ed; 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    SEDENTEX CT. Radiation protection: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines (v2·0 final). 2011. http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/guidelines_final.pdf
  10. 10.
    Kau CH, Pan P, Gallerano RL, English JD. A novel 3D classification system for canine impactions-the KPG index. Int J Med Robot. 2009;5:291–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu D, Zhang W, Zhang Z, Wu Y, Ma X. Localization of impacted maxillary canines and observation of adjacent incisor resorption with cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105:91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oberoi S, Chigurupati R, Gill P, Hoffman WY, Vargervik K. Volumetric assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using cone beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:503–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    JB C, JD S, RS C, Mercer JE. Applications of cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery: an overview of published indications and clinical usage in United States Academic Centers and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery practices. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):668–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.10.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Am Acad Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 2013;116(2):661.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nervina J. Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics. Aust Dent J. 2012;57:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01662.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, et al. Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140197. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedland B. Conebeam computed tomography: legal considerations. Alpha Omegan. 2010;103(2):57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farah Masood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Onur Kadioglu
    • 2
  • G. Fräns Currier
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Preventive SciencesUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center College of DentistryOklahoma CityUSA
  2. 2.Division of Orthodontics, Department of Developmental SciencesUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center College of DentistryOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations