Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of CBCT dose reduction on the mandibular canal visibility: ex vivo comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the difference in mandibular canal (MC) visibility using three different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition protocols: high resolution (HR), standard resolution (ST) and Quick scan+ (QS+).

Methods

Twenty-five human dry mandibles were scanned by one CBCT machine; i-CAT FLX (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA, USA), using three different acquisition protocols: high-resolution (HR), standard (ST) and Quick scan+ (QS+). DICOM data were transferred to a third party software Ondemand 3D (Cybermed Co., Seoul, Korea). The fusion module was used to superimpose images derived from different acquisition protocols to standardize the areas to compare the MC visibility. Comparison was performed at nine selected cross sections extending from an area distal to the third molar posteriorly to the first premolar anteriorly. Two expert radiologists evaluated the degree of MC visibility using five-scale scoring system.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference between the three acquisition protocols (HR, ST, QS+) at all investigated areas regardless of dentition status (p value < 0.001–0.034) except at the MR1M area where there was no statistically significant difference (p value = 0.094). HR protocol showed the highest prevalence of fully and partially corticated MC at almost all investigated areas while QS+ protocol showed the highest prevalence of invisible MC and clear and unclear non-corticated MC at almost all investigated areas.

Conclusions

QS+ protocol of i-CAT FLX CBCT machine is a recommended low-dose CBCT acquisition protocol for MC visibility at dentulous posterior mandibular regions while ST protocol is recommended at edentulous areas.

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 a
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jasa GR, Shimizu M, Okamura K, Tokumori K, Takeshita Y, Weerawanich W, et al. Effects of exposure parameters and slice thickness on detecting clear and unclear mandibular canals using cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol British Institute of Radiol; 2017;46

  2. Oliveira-Santos C, Capelozza ALÁ, Dezzoti MSG, Fischer CM, Poleti ML, Rubira-Bullen IRF. Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT cross-sectional images. J Appl Oral Sci [Internet]. Bauru School of Dentistry; 2011 [cited 2018 Mar 8];19:240–3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21625740

  3. Castro MAA, Lagravere-Vich MO, Amaral TMP, Abreu MHG, Mesquita RA. Classifications of mandibular canal branching: a review of literature. World J Radiol. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.; 2015;7:531.

  4. Shokry SM, Alshaib SA, Al Mohaimeed ZZ, Ghanimah F, Altyebe MM, Alenezi MA, et al. Assessment of the inferior alveolar nerve canal course among Saudis by cone beam computed tomography (Pilot Study). J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019;18:452–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuribayashi A, Watanabe H, Imaizumi A, Tantanapornkul W, Katakami K, Kurabayashi T. Bifid mandibular canals: cone beam computed tomography evaluation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:235–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza PHC, de Azambuja B-C, Stinkens L, Moyaert K, Rubira-Bullen IRF, et al. Assessment of variations of the mandibular canal through cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16:387–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jung Y-H, Cho B-H. Radiographic evaluation of the course and visibility of the mandibular canal. Imaging Sci Dent [Internet]. Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology; 2014 [cited 2018 Dec 25];44:273–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25473634

  8. Miles MS, Parks ET, Eckert GJ, Blanchard SB. Comparative evaluation of mandibular canal visibility on crosssectional cone-beam CT images: a retrospective study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol [Internet]. British Institute of Radiology; 2015 [cited 2018 Mar 11];45:20150296. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26545046

  9. Ludlow JB, Walker C. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop [Internet]. NIH Public Access; 2013 [cited 2019 Apr 8];144:802–17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24286904

  10. Yeh JK, Chen CH. Estimated radiation risk of cancer from dental cone-beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics patients. BMC Oral Health. BioMed Central Ltd.; 2018;18.

  11. Angelopoulos WCS and C. CBCT Use in Daily Practice. In: Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, editors. Maxillofac Cone Beam Comput Tomogr Princ Tech Clin Appl. Springer International Publishing AG; 2018. p. 182.

  12. Al-Ekrish AA. 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 [Internet]. Elsevier; 2012 [cited 2019 Apr 9];24:127–34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23960541

  13. Waltrick KB, de Abreu Junior MJN, Corrêa M, Zastrow MD, D’Avila DV. Accuracy of linear measurements and visibility of the mandibular canal of cone-beam computed tomography images with different voxel sizes: an in vitro study. J Periodontol. 2013;84:68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Katkar R, Steffy DD, Noujeim M, Deahl ST, Geha H. The effect of milliamperage, number of basis images, and export slice thickness on contrast-to-noise ratio and detection of mandibular canal on cone beam computed tomography scans: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. Mosby Inc.; 2016;122:646–53.

  15. Park SB, Yoon JK, Il KY, Hwang DS, Cho BH, Son WS. The evaluation of the nasal morphologic changes after bimaxillary surgery in skeletal class III malocclusion by using the superimposition of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) volumes. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2012;40:e87–e92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Weissheimer A, Menezes LM, Koerich L, Pham J, Cevidanes LHS. Fast three-dimensional superimposition of cone beam computed tomography for orthopaedics and orthognathic surgery evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Churchill Livingstone; 2015;44:1188–96.

  17. Kubilius M, Kubilius R, Varinauskas V, Žalinkevičius R, Tözüm TF, Juodžbalys G. Descriptive study of mandibular canal visibility: morphometric and densitometric analysis for digital panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol [Internet]. British Institute of Radiology; 2016 [cited 2018 Mar 12];45:20160079. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167456

  18. Yeung AWK, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. Novel low-dose protocols using cone beam computed tomography in dental medicine: a review focusing on indications, limitations, and future possibilities. Clin. Oral Investig. Springer; 2019. p. 2573–81.

  19. EzEldeen M, Stratis A, Coucke W, Codari M, Politis C, Jacobs R. As low dose as sufficient quality: optimization of cone-beam computed tomographic scanning protocol for tooth autotransplantation planning and follow-up in children. J Endod. 2017;43(2):210–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Mar 11];44:20140197. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25224586

  21. Pauwels R, Scarfe WC. Radiation dose, risks, and protection in CBCT. Maxillofac Cone Beam Comput Tomogr Princ Tech Clin Appl. Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 227–46.

  22. Alabdulwahid A, Alfaleh W. Identification of mandibular canal in cone beam computed tomography plane with different voxel sizes. Saudi Dent J [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 20]; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1013905219305747

  23. Fokas G, Vaughn VM, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: a systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. Blackwell Munksgaard; 2018. p. 393–415.

  24. Pauwels R. What Is CBCT and How Does It Work? In: Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, editors. Maxillofac Cone Beam Comput Tomogr Princ Tech Clin Appl. 1st ed. Springer; 2018. p. 14.

  25. Bürklein S, Grund C, Schäfer E. Relationship between Root Apices and the Mandibular Canal: A Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Analysis in a German Population. J Endod [Internet]. Elsevier; 2015 [cited 2019 Oct 11];41:1696–700. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009923991500597X

  26. Lofthag-Hansen S, Gröndahl K, Ekestubbe A. Cone-Beam CT for Preoperative Implant Planning in the Posterior Mandible: Visibility of Anatomic Landmarks. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2018 Mar 8];11:246–55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18783419

  27. Kamrun N, Tetsumura A, Nomura Y, Yamaguchi S, Baba O, Nakamura S, et al. Visualization of the superior and inferior borders of the mandibular canal: a comparative study using digital panoramic radiographs and cross-sectional computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:550–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shokri A, Shakibaei Z, Langaroodi AJ, Safaei M. Evaluation of the mandibular canal visibility on cone-beam computed tomography images of the mandible. J Craniofac Surg. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2014;25.

  29. Tantanapornkul W, Okouchi K, Fujiwara Y, Yamashiro M, Maruoka Y, Ohbayashi N, et al. A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and conventional panoramic radiography in assessing the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2007;103:253–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kalabalik F, Aytuğar E. Localization of the Mandibular Canal in a Turkish Population: a Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study. J Oral Maxillofac Res. Stilus Optimus; 2019;10.

  31. Naitoh M, Katsumata A, Kubota Y, Hayashi M, Ariji E. Relationship between cancellous bone density and mandibular canal depiction. Implant Dent. 2009;18:112–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jacobs R, Mraiwa N, van Steenberghe D, Sanderink G, Quirynen M. Appearance of the mandibular incisive canal on panoramic radiographs. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:329–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Denio D, Torabinejad M, Bakland LK. Anatomical relationship of the mandibular canal to its surrounding structures in mature mandibles. J Endod. 1992;18:161–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gowgiel JM. The position and course of the mandibular canal. J Oral Implantol. 1992;18:383–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wadu SG, Penhall B, Townsend GC. Morphological variability of the human inferior alveolar nerve. Clin Anat. 1997;10:82–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Angelopoulos C, Thomas S, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2019 Jun 11];66:2130–5. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278239108010902

  37. Neves FS, Souza TDC, De-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Flores Campos PS, Bóscolo FN. Influence of cone-beam computed tomography milliamperage settings on image quality of the mandibular third molar region Oral Radiol Springer Tokyo. 2014;30:27–31

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Horus University in Egypt, New Damietta, Egypt

    Islam M. Zaki

  2. Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Walaa M. Hamed & Mostafa S. Ashmawy

Authors
  1. Islam M. Zaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walaa M. Hamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mostafa S. Ashmawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Islam M. Zaki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Islam M. Zacki, Walaa M. Hamed, and Mostafa S. Ashmawy declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Zaki, I.M., Hamed, W.M. & Ashmawy, M.S. Effect of CBCT dose reduction on the mandibular canal visibility: ex vivo comparative study. Oral Radiol 37, 282–289 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00448-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00448-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation