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

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

by adminjay

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 34.

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

  • 35.

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

  • 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

  • Source link

    Related Articles

    Leave a Comment