Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: overview of recent literature

  • J. K. M. ApsEmail author
Review

Abstract

Background

The use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in paediatric dentistry has been mentioned in numerous publications and case reports. The indications for the use of CBCT in paediatric dentistry, however, have not yet been properly addressed. On the other hand, the three basic principles of radiation protection (justification, limitation and optimisation) should suffice.

Review

A review of the current literature was used to assess the indications and contra-indications for the use of CBCT in paediatric dentistry. Paramount is the fact that CBCT generates a higher effective dose to the tissues than traditional dental radiographic exposures do. The effective radiation dose should not be underestimated, especially not in children, who are much more susceptible to stochastic biological effects. The thyroid gland in particular should be kept out of the primary beam as much as possible.

Conclusion

As with any other radiographical technique, routine use of CBCT is not acceptable clinical practice. CBCT certainly has a place in paediatric dentistry, but its use must be justified on a patient case individual basis.

Keywords

Cone beam computed tomography Paediatric dentistry Diagnosis Safety 

References

  1. Ahmad M, Jenny J, Downie M. Application of cone beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Austr Dental J. 2012;57:82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkhader M, Kuribayashi A, Ohbayashi N, Nakamura S, Kurabayashi T. Usefulness of cone beam computed tomography in temporomandibular joints with soft tissue pathology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:343–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Garcia Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, et al. Cone beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped. 2008;135:1–5.Google Scholar
  4. Dalili Kajan Z, Taromsari M. Value of cone beam CT in detection of dental root fractures. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2012;41:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies J, Johnson B, Drage NA. Effective doses from cone beam CT investigations of the jaws. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41:30–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:609–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delamare EL, Liedke GS, Vizzotto MB, et al. Influence of a programme of professional calibration in the variability of landmark identification using cone beam computed tomography-synthesized and conventional radiographic cephalograms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:414–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson K, O’Connor S, Heath N. Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/91866873.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Farman AG. ALARA still applies—editorial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;100:395–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham DT, Cloke P, eds. Radiation protection. In: Graham DT, Cloke P. Principles of radiological physics, 4th edn. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2004, p. 339–360.Google Scholar
  11. Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Rad. 2008;37:18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanzelka T, Foltan R, Horka E, Sedy J. Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on the quality of CBCT scan. Med Hypotheses. 2010;75:610–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassan BA, Payam J, Juyanda B, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Influence of scan setting selections on root canal visibility with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2012;41:645–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hendee WR, Ritenour ER. Radiation quantity and quality. 4th ed. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 91–115.Google Scholar
  15. Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Horner K, Whaites E. Orthodontic radiographs—guidelines. 3rd ed. London: British Orthodontic Society; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. Jacquet W, Nyssen E, Bottenberg P, et al. Novel information theory based method for superimposition of lateral head radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010;39:191–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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;41:91–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kapila S, Conley RS, Harrell WE Jr. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40:24–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katheria BC, Kau CH, Tate R, et al. Effectiveness of impacted and supernumerary tooth diagnosis from traditional radiography versus cone beam computed tomography. Ped Dent. 2010;32:304–9.Google Scholar
  20. Koong B. Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality? Clin Oral Impl Res. 2010;21:1201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar V, Ludlow JB, Mol A, Cevidanes L. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2007;36:263–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ludlow JB. A manufacturer’s role in reducing the dose of cone beam computed tomography examinations: effect of beam filtration. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011;40:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mah J, Yi L, Huang RC, Choo H. Advanced applications of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Semin Orthod. 2011;17:55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mettler FA Jr, Upton AC. Basic radiation physics, chemistry, and biology. In: Mettler Jr FA, Upton AC, editors. Medical effects of ionizing radiation. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2008. p. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nervina JM. Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics. Austr Dent J 2012 57 Suppl 1:95–102.Google Scholar
  26. Patel S, Horner K. Editorial: the use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2009;42:755–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patel S, Wilson R, Dawood A, Mannocci F. Detection of peri-apical pathology using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography—a clinical study. Int Endod J. 2011;. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01989.x.Google Scholar
  28. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, The SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Rad. 2012;81:267–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prins R, Dauer LT, Colosi DC, et al. Significant reduction in dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) eye dose through the use of leaded glasses. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112:502–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qu XM, Li G, Sanderink GCH, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Dose reduction of cone beam CT scanning for the entire oral and maxillofacial regions with thyroid collars. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2012;41:373–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br Dent J of Radiol. 2009;82:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sakabe J, Kuroki Y, Fujimaki S, Nakajima I, Honda K. Reproducibility and accuracy of measuring unerupted teeth in limted cone beam X-ray CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:2–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Austr Dent J. 2012;57 Suppl 1:46–60.Google Scholar
  34. Spin-Neto R, Mudrak J, Matzen LH, et al. Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;42:1–8. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/32310645.Google Scholar
  35. Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, The Sedentexct Project Consortium, et al. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Vlijmen OJ, Kuijpers MA, Bergé SJ, et al. Evidence supporting the use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. JADA. 2012;143:241–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wall BF, Kendall GM, Edwards AA, et al. What are the risks from medical X-rays and other low dose radiation? Brit J Radiol. 2006;79:285–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang P, Yan XB, Lui DG, et al. Detection of dental root fractures by using cone-beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2011a;40:290–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 case report of four representative cases. Dent Traumatol. 2011b;. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01072.x.Google Scholar
  40. Wenzel A, Hirsch E, Christensen J, et al. Detection of cavitated approximal surfaces using cone beam CT and intraoral receptors. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2013;42:39458105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whaites E. Dose units and dosimetry. In: Whaites E, editor. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007a. p. 25–8.Google Scholar
  42. Whaites E. The biological effects and risks associated with X-rays. In: Whaites E, editor. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology. 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007b. p. 29–33.Google Scholar
  43. Wörtche R, Hassfeld S, Lux CJ, et al. Clinical application of cone beam digital volume tomography in children with cleft lip and palate. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:88–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young SM, Lee JT, Hodges RJ, et al. A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charged-coupled device sensors for detecting caries. Dentomaxillofac Rad. 2009;38:445–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paediatric DentistryUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations