Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Image retake rates of cone beam computed tomography in a dental institution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the frequency and reasons for retaking cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans in an oral and maxillofacial radiology imaging clinic in a dental institution.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort chart audit of the patient image database was performed for 1737 patients attending the Diagnostic Imaging clinic at the Prince Philip Dental Hospital from February 2016 to May 2019, and the rate of, and reasons for, CBCT image re-exposure was tallied. Patient demographics (age and gender) and CBCT acquisition parameters (CBCT unit, field-of-view (FOV), scanned region of interest, and exposure time) were recorded and correlated to retake analysis.

Results

The retake rate was 4.6% (80/1737). The most common reasons for re-exposure were incomplete FOV coverage (57.5%) and motion artifacts (27.5%). Patients under 12 years of age had a significantly higher risk for motion artifacts. CBCT for the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) had a significantly higher risk for incomplete FOV coverage.

Conclusions

Children (less than 12 years of age) demonstrate a higher frequency of retakes, principally due to motion artifacts. TMJ CBCT examinations have a higher frequency of retakes due to an incomplete FOV coverage.

Clinical relevance

Information regarding the frequency and reasons for CBCT retakes is beneficial to identify procedures, practices, or patients susceptible to additional radiation exposure and implement appropriate and specific quality control protocols.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A (2018) Trends in maxillofacial imaging. Clin Radiol 73:4–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Preston-Martin S, White SC (1990) Brain and salivary gland tumors related to prior dental radiography: implications for current practice. J Am Dent Assoc 120:151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Memon A, Godward S, Williams D, Siddique I, Al-Saleh K (2010) Dental x-rays and the risk of thyroid cancer: a case-control study. Acta Oncol 49:447–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Longstreth W Jr, Phillips LE, Drangsholt M, Koepsell TD, Custer BS, Gehrels JA, van Belle G (2004) Dental X-rays and the risk of intracranial meningioma: a population-based case–control study. Cancer 100:1026–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Huang W, Muo C, Lin C, Jen Y, Yang M, Lin J, Sung F, Kao C (2014) Paediatric head CT scan and subsequent risk of malignancy and benign brain tumour: a nation-wide population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer 110:2354–2360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, Giles GG, Wallace AB, Anderson PR, Guiver TA (2013) Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, Howe NL, Ronckers CM, Rajaraman P, Craft AW (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet 380:499–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaju PP, Jaju SP (2015) Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent 45:263–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hayashi T, Arai Y, Chikui T, Hayashi-Sakai S, Honda K, Indo H, Kawai T, Kobayashi K, Murakami S, Nagasawa M, Naitoh M, Nakayama E, Nikkuni Y, Nishiyama H, Shoji N, Suenaga S, Tanaka R (2018) Clinical guidelines for dental cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol 34:89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J (2007) Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:395–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pauwels R (2015) Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 165:156–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A (2015) Factors affecting patient movement and re-exposure in cone beam computed tomography examination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 119:572–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Habibi Y, Habibi E, Al-Nawas B (2019) Re-exposure in cone beam CT of the dentomaxillofacial region: a retrospective study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 48:20180184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 29:55–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal 9:137–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tomz M, King G, Zeng L 1999. RELOGIT: Rare events logistic regression, Version 1.1 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, October 1, http://gking.harvard.edu/.

  18. Gadeholt G, Geitung JT, Gothlin JH, Asp T (1989) Continuing reject-repeat film analysis program. Eur J Radiol 9:137–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Waaler D, Hofmann B (2010) Image rejects/retakes--radiographic challenges. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 139:375–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Andersen ER, Jorde J, Taoussi N, Yaqoob SH, Konst B, Seierstad T (2012) Reject analysis in direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol 53:174–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hofmann B, Rosanowsky TB, Jensen C, Wah KH (2015) Image rejects in general direct digital radiography. Acta Radiol Open 4:2058460115604339

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Peer S, Peer R, Giacomuzzi SM, Jaschke W (2001) Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 94:69–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Acharya S, Pai KM, Acharya S (2015) Repeat film analysis and its implications for quality assurance in dental radiology: an institutional case study. Contemp Clin Dent 6:392–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Senior A, Winand C, Ganatra S, Lai H, Alsulfyani N, Pacheco-Pereira C (2018) Digital intraoral imaging re-exposure rates of dental students. J Dent Educ 82:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mupparapu M, Jariwala S, Singer SR, Kim IH, Janal M (2007) Comparison of re-exposure rates of intraoral radiographs between dental students and trained dental assistants in an oral and maxillofacial radiology clinic. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:224–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yurt A, Tintas M, Yuksel R (2018) Reject analysis in digital radiography: a prospective study. Int J Anat Radiol Surg 7:RO27–RO30

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brown J, Jacobs R, Levring Jaghagen E, Lindh C, Baksi G, Schulze D, Schulze R (2014) Basic training requirements for the use of dental CBCT by dentists: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 43:20130291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. European Commission Radiation protection No. 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.

  29. Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS (2015) Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nardi C, Borri C, Regini F, Calistri L, Castellani A, Lorini C, Colagrande S (2015) Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study. Radiol Med 12:618–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Donaldson K, O’Connor S, Heath N (2013) Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42:91866873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yeung AWK, Azevedo B, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM (2020) Patient motion image artifacts can be minimized and re-exposure avoided by selective removal of a sequence of basis images from cone beam computed tomography data sets: a case series. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 129:e212–e223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Van Acker JWG, Jacquet W, Dierens M, Martens LC (2019) A reject analysis of cone-beam CTs in under-aged patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 48:20180138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.

  35. Kuhnisch J, Anttonen V, Duggal MS, Spyridonos ML, Rajasekharan S, Sobczak M, Stratigaki E, Van Acker JWG, Aps JKM, Horner K, Tsiklakis K (2019) Best clinical practice guidance for prescribing dental radiographs in children and adolescents: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 101007/s40368-019-00493-x

  36. Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B (2018) Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol 48:308–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ (2015) Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mallya SM (2018) Quality assurance and infection control. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ (eds) Book title. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Ms. Kar Yan Li, Centralised Research Lab, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, for her valuable assistance regarding the statistical analysis.

Funding

This study has been funded by departmental funds only.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences & Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Kuofeng Hung, Liuling Hui, Andy Wai Kan Yeung & Michael M. Bornstein

  2. Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Diagnosis and Oral Health, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA

    William C. Scarfe

  3. Department of Oral Health & Medicine, University Center of Dental Medicine Basel UZB, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Michael M. Bornstein

Authors
  1. Kuofeng Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liuling Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andy Wai Kan Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William C. Scarfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael M. Bornstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Michael M. Bornstein and Andy Wai Kan Yeung contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Kuofeng Hung and Liuling Hui. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Kuofeng Hung. Michael M. Bornstein, Andy Wai Kan Yeung, and William C. Scarfe contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael M. Bornstein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol was submitted to and approved by the local institutional review board (IRB) of the University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (approval number UW 19-540).

Informed consent

For this type of study (retrospective study) formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hung, K., Hui, L., Yeung, A.W.K. et al. Image retake rates of cone beam computed tomography in a dental institution. Clin Oral Invest 24, 4501–4510 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03315-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03315-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation