Cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: overview of recent literature
- 764 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCone beam computed tomography Paediatric dentistry Diagnosis Safety
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hendee WR, Ritenour ER. Radiation quantity and quality. 4th ed. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 91–115.Google Scholar
- Isaacson KG, Thom AR, Horner K, Whaites E. Orthodontic radiographs—guidelines. 3rd ed. London: British Orthodontic Society; 2008.Google Scholar
- 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
- Nervina JM. Cone beam computed tomography use in orthodontics. Austr Dent J 2012 57 Suppl 1:95–102.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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