Home Dental Radiology Low-dose cone-beam computed tomography in simulated condylar erosion detection: a diagnostic accuracy study

Low-dose cone-beam computed tomography in simulated condylar erosion detection: a diagnostic accuracy study

by adminjay


  • 1.

    Naser AZ, Shirani AM, Hekmatian E, Valiani A, Ardestani P, Vali A. Comparison of accuracy of uncorrected and corrected sagittal tomography in detection of mandibular condyle erosions. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2010;7(2):76–81.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Santos LAN, Campos PSF, Paula AMP, Martelli Júnior H, Melo Filho MR. Image of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in mandibular condyle–case report. Rev ABRO. 2005;6(1):29–34.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Tanaka E, Detamore MS, Mercuri LG. Degenerative disorders of the temporomandibular joint: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Dent Res. 2008;87(4):296–307.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Robinson B, Kelma V, Marques LS, Pereira LJ. Imaging diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint. Oral Radiol. 2009;25(2):86–98.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Marques AP, Perrella A, Arita ES, Pereira MF, Cavalcanti M. Assessment of simulated mandibular condyle bone lesions by cone beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res. 2010;24(4):467–74.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K, Araki M, Kawashima S, Terakado M. A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with a multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003;95(3):371–7.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015;165(1–4):156–61.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Bastos LC, Campos PS, Ramos-Perez FM, Pontual AD, Almeida SM. Evaluation of condyle defects using different reconstruction protocols of cone-beam computed tomography. Braz Oral Res (São Paulo). 2013;27(6):503–9.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Patel A, Tee BC, Fields H, Jones E, Chaudhry J, Sun Z. Evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of simulated small osseous defects in the mandibular condyle. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):143–56.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Salemi F, Shokri A, Mortazavi H, Baharvand M. Diagnosis of simulated condylar bone defects using panoramic radiography, spiral tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: a comparison study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;7(1):e34–9.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Hegde V, Naikmasur VG, Burde KN, Jayade GR. Validity of orthopantomograph, cone beam computed tomography and CT for assessment of simulated lesions over mandibular condyle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;3(3):142–8.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Oenning AC, Pauwels R, Stratis A, De Faria Vasconcelos K, Tijskens E, De Grauwe A, et al. Halve the dose while maintaining image quality in paediatric cone beam CT. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):5521.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavide 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. 2015;44(1):20140197.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Roberts JA, Drage NA, Davies J, Thomas DW. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):35–40.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(2):267–71.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Liljeholm R, Kadesjö N, Benchimol D, Hellén-Halme K, Shi X. Cone-beam tomography with ultralow dose protocols for pre-implant radiographic assessment: an in vitro study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(3):351–9.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Beam CA. Strategies for improving power in diagnostic radiology research. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(3):631–7.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Salemi F, Shokri A, Maleki FH, Farhadian M, Dashti G, Ostovarrad F, et al. Effect of field of view on detection of condyle bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(3):644–8.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Shetty US, Burde KN, Naikmasur VG, Sattur AP. Assessment of condylar changes in patients with temporomandibular joint pain using digital volumetric tomography. Radiol Res Pract. 2014;2014:106059.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    Šimundić AM. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions. EJIFCC. 2009;19(4):203–11.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Bushberg JT. Science, Radiation Protection, and the NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future. In: NCRP: achievements of the past 50 years and addressing the needs of the future. Fiftieth annual meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP); 2014 March 11-March 14; Bethesda; United States.

  • 23.

    Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45(4):263–5.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Pauwels R, Silkosessak O, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. A pragmatic approach to determine the optimal kVp in cone-beam CT: balancing contrast-to-noise ratio and radiation dose. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(5):20140059.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Shahab S, Nikkerdar N, Goodarzi M, Golshah A, Shooshtari SS. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in detection of simulated mandibular condyle erosions. Dent Hypotheses. 2015;6(3):97–103.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Honda K, Larheim TA, Maruhashi K, Matsumoto K, Iwai K. Osseous abnormalities of the mandibular condyle: diagnostic reliability of cone beam computed tomography compared with helical computed tomography based on autopsy material. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(3):152–7.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Zain Alabdeen EH, Alsadhan RI. A comparative study of accuracy of detection of surface osseous changes in the temporomandibular joint using multidetector CT and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(3):185–91.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    Zain Alabdeen EH. Accuracy of half-exposure time in cone-beam computed tomography imaging for the detection of surface osseous changes in the temporomandibular joint. Oral Radiol. 2017;33(2):124–32.


    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Parikh R, Mathai A, Parikh S, Chandra Sekhar G, Thomas R. Understanding and using sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56(1):45–50.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Trevethan R. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice. Front Public Health. 2017;5:307.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Honey OB, Scarfe WC, Hilgers MJ. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint: comparisons with panoramic radiology and linear tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(4):429–38.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Holroyd JR, Walker A. Recommendations for the design of X-ray facilities and the quality assurance of dental cone beam CT (computed tomography) systems. A report of the HPA working party on dental cone beam CT. 2010; Report No.: HPA-RPD-065. Chilton, UK: Health Protection Agency.

  • 34.

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

  • 35.

    Librizzi ZT, Tadinada AS, Valiyaparambil JV, Lurie AG, Mallya SM. Cone-beam computed tomography to detect erosions of the temporomandibular joint: effect of field of view and voxel size on diagnostic efficacy and effective dose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(1):e25–30.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    Yadav S, Palo L, Mahdian M, Upadhyay M, Tadinada A. Diagnostic accuracy of 2 cone-beam computed tomography protocols for detecting arthritic changes in temporomandibular joints. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(3):339–44.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 37.

    Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(3):196–201.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    Hussain AM, Packota G, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Role of different imaging modalities in assessment of temporomandibular joint erosions and osteophytes: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008;37(2):63–71.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     



  • Source link

    Related Articles

    Leave a Comment