Case Selection for the Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Dentistry Based on Diagnostic Efficacy and Risk Assessment



Case selection for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dental purposes is primarily based on individual risk-benefit assessment, balancing between the long-term radiation risks of CBCT and its ultimate benefit for each individual patient. Based on the currently available literature, the expected ultimate benefit to the patient, as evaluated by the level of diagnostic efficacy of CBCT in dentistry, is yet unclear, and it is mainly limited to its technical and the diagnostic accuracy efficacies. Even for these levels of efficacy, evidence is incomplete. Therefore, the efficacy of CBCT in supporting the practitioner’s decision making, the treatment planning, and eventually in affecting treatment outcomes is not fully elucidated. On the other hand, the potential radiation risks of CBCT scan are uncertain and are stochastic in nature, thus requiring a preventive clinical approach. Consequently, cautious decision making is warranted when a CBCT scan is considered. This chapter reviews the current literature concerning the benefits of CBCT in dental practice, alongside its risks in this use, and presents a practical case-selection algorithm for the use of CBCT in dentistry.


Case selection Cone beam computed tomography Efficacy Radiation risk 


  1. 1.
    AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement: use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Update 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement – use of cone-beam-computed tomography in endodontics. 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinsky HM, Dyda S, Pinsky RW, Misch KA, Sarment DP. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(6):410–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel S. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2009;42(6):463–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol. 2014;6(10):794–807.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Venskutonis T, Plotino G, Juodzbalys G, Mickeviciene L. The importance of cone-beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems: a review of the literature. J Endod. 2014;40:1895–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aljehani YA. Diagnostic applications of cone-beam CT for periodontal diseases. Int J Dent. 2014;2014:865079.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Clinical utility of dental cone-beam computed tomography: current perspectives. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2014;6:29–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):55–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta J, Ali SP. Cone beam computed tomography in oral implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013;4(1):2–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agrawal JM, Agrawal MS, Nanjannawar LG, Parushetti AD. CBCT in orthodontics: the wave of future. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(1):153–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosen E, Taschieri S, Del-Fabbro M, Beitlitum I, Tsesis I. The diagnostic efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics: a systematic review and analysis by a hierarchical model of efficacy. J Endod. 2015;41:1008–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Shemesh H, Roig M, Lemberg K. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics- a review. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(1):3–15.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380(9840):499–505.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rehani MM, Berry M. Radiation doses in computed tomography. The increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled. BMJ. 2000;320(7235):593–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ee J, Fayad MI, Johnson BR. Comparison of endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning decisions using cone-beam volumetric tomography versus periapical radiography. J Endod. 2014;40(7):910–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17(2):69–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim IH, Patel MJ, Hirt SL, Kantor ML. Clinical research and diagnostic efficacy studies in the oral and maxillofacial radiology literature: 1996–2005. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):274–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scarfe WC. “All that glitters is not gold”: standards for cone-beam computerized tomographic imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(4):402–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chavda R, Mannocci F, Andiappan M, Patel S. Comparing the in vivo diagnostic accuracy of digital periapical radiography with cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of vertical root fracture. J Endod. 2014;40:1524–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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;118:593–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dailey B, Mines P, Anderson A, M. S. The use of cone beam computer tomography in endodontics: results of a questionnaire. AAE Annual Session abstract presentation; 2010.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neves FS, Freitas DQ, Campos PS, Ekestubbe A, Lofthag-Hansen S. Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of vertical root fractures: the influence of imaging modes and root canal materials. J Endod. 2014;40:1530–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Azim AA, Azim KA, Deutsch AS, Huang GT. Acquisition of anatomic parameters concerning molar pulp chamber landmarks using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2014;40(9):1298–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matherne RP, Angelopoulos C, Kulild JC, Tira D. Use of cone-beam computed tomography to identify root canal systems in vitro. J Endod. 2008;34(1):87–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Metska ME, Liem VM, Parsa A, Koolstra JH, Wesselink PR, Ozok AR. Cone-beam computed tomographic scans in comparison with periapical radiographs for root canal length measurement: an in situ study. J Endod. 2014;40(8):1206–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liang YH, Jiang L, Chen C, Gao XJ, Wesselink PR, Wu MK, et al. The validity of cone-beam computed tomography in measuring root canal length using a gold standard. J Endod. 2013;39(12):1607–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jeger FB, Janner SF, Bornstein MM, Lussi A. Endodontic working length measurement with preexisting cone-beam computed tomography scanning: a prospective, controlled clinical study. J Endod. 2012;38(7):884–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Janner SF, Jeger FB, Lussi A, Bornstein MM. Precision of endodontic working length measurements: a pilot investigation comparing cone-beam computed tomography scanning with standard measurement techniques. J Endod. 2011;37(8):1046–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abella F, Patel S, Duran-Sindreu F, Mercade M, Bueno R, Roig M. Evaluating the periapical status of teeth with irreversible pulpitis by using cone-beam computed tomography scanning and periapical radiographs. J Endod. 2012;38(12):1588–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pope O, Sathorn C, Parashos P. A comparative investigation of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in the diagnosis of a healthy periapex. J Endod. 2014;40(3):360–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pauwels R, Cockmartin L, Ivanauskaite D, Urboniene A, Gavala S, Donta C, et al. Estimating cancer risk from dental cone-beam CT exposures based on skin dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(14):3877–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petersen LB, Olsen KR, Matzen LH, Vaeth M, Wenzel A. Economic and health implications of routine CBCT examination before surgical removal of the mandibular third molar in the Danish population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(6):20140406.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu TH, Lin WC, Chen WK, Chang YC, Hwang JJ. Predicting cancer risks from dental computed tomography. J Dent Res. 2015;94(1):27–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    ADA, editor The use of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry. An advisory statement from the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Chicago: The American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs; 2012.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; 2012.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11(2):88–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Krupinski EA, Jiang Y. Anniversary paper: evaluation of medical imaging systems. Med Phys. 2008;35(2):645–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matzen LH, Wenzel A. Efficacy of cone beam computed tomography for assessment of impacted mandibular third molars: a review based on a hierarchical model of evidence. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carrotte P. Endodontics: part 2 diagnosis and treatment planning. Br Dent J. 2004;197(5):231–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mota de Almeida F, Knutsson K, Flygare L. The impact of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the choice of endodontic diagnosis. Int Endod J. 2015;48:564–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bernardes RA, de Moraes IG, Hungaro Duarte MA, Azevedo BC, de Azevedo JR, Bramante CM. Use of cone-beam volumetric tomography in the diagnosis of root fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(2):270–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    de Paula-Silva FW, Wu MK, Leonardo MR, da Silva LA, Wesselink PR. Accuracy of periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography scans in diagnosing apical periodontitis using histopathological findings as a gold standard. J Endod. 2009;35(7):1009–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gutmann JL. Evidence-based/guest editorial. J Endod. 2009;35:1093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mileman PA, van den Hout WB. Evidence-based diagnosis and clinical decision making. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ. 1995;310(6987):1122–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sutherland SE, Matthews DC. Conducting systematic reviews and creating clinical practice guidelines in dentistry: lessons learned. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135(6):747–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Patel S, Dawood A, Whaites E, Pitt FT. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 1. Conventional and alternative radiographic systems. Int Endod J. 2009;42(6):447–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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(1):20140197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Givol N, Rosen E, Taicher S, Tsesis I. Risk management in endodontics. J Endod. 2010;36(6):982–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    European-Environment-Agency, editor. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. Environmental issue report No 22; 2001. Copenhagen: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2001.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Peto J, Decarli A, La Vecchia C, Levi F, Negri E. The European mesothelioma epidemic. Br J Cancer. 1999;79(3–4):666–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    KHEIFETS LI, HESTER GL, BANERJEE GL. The precautionary principle and EMF: implementation and evaluation. J Risk Res. 2001;4(2):113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ashton J. “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall, he will end by destroying the world.” (Albert Schweitzer). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(5):314.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Berman LH, Hartwell GR. Diagnosis. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM, editors. Pathways of the pulp. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 2–39.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Parker L. Computed tomography scanning in children: radiation risks. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2001;18(5):307–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Friedland B. Medicolegal issues related to cone beam CT. Semin Orthod. 2009;15:77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tsesis I, Rosen E, Tamse A, Taschieri S, Kfir A. Diagnosis of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth based on clinical and radiographic indices: a systematic review. J Endod. 2010;36(9):1455–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    da Silveira PF, Vizzotto MB, Liedke GS, da Silveira HL, 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;29:41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Edlund M, Nair MK, Nair UP. Detection of vertical root fractures by using cone-beam computed tomography: a clinical study. J Endod. 2011;37(6):768–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fayad MI, Ashkenaz PJ, Johnson BR. Different representations of vertical root fractures detected by cone-beam volumetric tomography: a case series report. J Endod. 2012;38(10):1435–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ferreira RI, Bahrami G, Isidor F, Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Groppo FC. Detection of vertical root fractures by cone-beam computerized tomography in endodontically treated teeth with fiber-resin and titanium posts: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:e49–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fuss Z, Lustig J, Katz A, Tamse A. An evaluation of endodontically treated vertical root fractured teeth: impact of operative procedures. J Endod. 2001;27(1):46–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth by a cone beam computed tomography scan. J Endod. 2009;35(5):719–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Comparison of five cone beam computed tomography systems for the detection of vertical root fractures. J Endod. 2010;36(1):126–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kambungton J, Janhom A, Prapayasatok S, Pongsiriwet S. Assessment of vertical root fractures using three imaging modalities: cone beam CT, intraoral digital radiography and film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(2):91–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Metska ME, Aartman IH, Wesselink PR, Ozok AR. Detection of vertical root fractures in vivo in endodontically treated teeth by cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Endod. 2012;38(10):1344–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ozer SY. Detection of vertical root fractures of different thicknesses in endodontically enlarged teeth by cone beam computed tomography versus digital radiography. J Endod. 2010;36(7):1245–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ozer 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wang P, He W, Sun H, Lu Q, Ni L. Detection of vertical root fractures in non-endodontically treated molars using cone-beam computed tomography: a report of four representative cases. Dent Traumatol. 2012;28(4):329–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zou X, Liu D, Yue L, Wu M. The ability of cone-beam computerized tomography to detect vertical root fractures in endodontically treated and nonendodontically treated teeth: a report of 3 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111(6):797–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eyal Rosen
    • 1
  • Veeratrishul Allareddy
    • 2
  • Igor Tsesis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EndodontologyMaurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Oral Pathology, Radiology & MedicineThe University of Iowa College of DentistryIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations