Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2020; 24(05): 479-487
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709428
Review Article

Dentomaxillofacial CBCT: Clinical Challenges for Indication-oriented Imaging

Victor Aquino Wanderley 
1   Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
2   OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Karla de Faria Vasconcelos 
2   OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
André Ferreira Leite 
2   OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
4   Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil
,
Matheus L. Oliveira 
1   Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Reinhilde Jacobs 
2   OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
3   Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
› Author Affiliations Funding Source This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This critical review discusses the clinical challenges for patient-specific and indication-oriented dentomaxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Large variations among units and protocols may lead to variable degrees of diagnostic and three-dimensional model accuracy, impacting both specific diagnostic tasks and treatment planning. Particular indications, whether diagnostic or therapeutic, may give rise to very specific challenges with regard to CBCT unit and parameter setup, considering the required image quality, segmentation accuracy, and artifact level. Considering that dental materials are in the field of view needed for diagnosis or treatment planning, artifact expression is a dominant factor in proper CBCT selection. The heterogeneity of dental CBCT units and performances may highly impact the scientific results. Thus research findings cannot be simply generalized as published evidence, and a demonstrated clinical applicability for a specific indication should not be simply extrapolated from one CBCT unit to another.

Keywords

image quality - cone beam computed tomography - metal artifacts - dentomaxillofacial radiology


Publication History

Article published online:
09 October 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Sedentexct. Radiation protection 172. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence-based guidelines. Available at: http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_protection_172.pdf . Accessed January 27, 2020
    PubMed
  • 2 Oenning AC, Pauwels R, Stratis A. , et al; Dimitra research group. Halve the dose while maintaining image quality in paediatric cone beam CT. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 5521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jacobs R. Dental cone beam CT and its justified use in oral health care. JBR-BTR 2011; 94 (05) 254-265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gaêta-Araujo H, Alzoubi T, de Faria Vasconcelos K. et al. Cone-beam computed tomography in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a two-decade overview. Ahead of print
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brüllmann D, Schulze RK. Spatial resolution in CBCT machines for dental/maxillofacial applications—what do we know today?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vasconcelos KF, Nicolielo LF, Nascimento MC. et al. Artefact expression associated with several cone-beam computed tomographic machines when imaging root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2015; 48 (10) 994-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Codari M, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo L, Haiter Neto F, Jacobs R. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifacts using different CBCT devices, high-density materials and field of views. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (12) 1509-1514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D. et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40 (05) 265-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42 (08) 20130176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bechara B, Alex McMahan C, Moore WS, Noujeim M, Teixeira FB, Geha H. Cone beam CT scans with and without artefact reduction in root fracture detection of endodontically treated teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42 (05) 20120245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vasconcelos KF, Codari M, Queiroz PM. et al. The performance of metal artifact reduction algorithms in cone beam computed tomography images considering the effects of materials, metal positions, and fields of view. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019; 127 (01) 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stratis A, Zhang G, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H. The growing concern of radiation dose in paediatric dental and maxillofacial CBCT: an easy guide for daily practice. Eur Radiol 2019; 29 (12) 7009-7018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B. , et al; SEDENTEXCT Project Consortium. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (02) 267-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18: 88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Van Steenberghe D, Malevez C, Van Cleynenbreugel J. et al. Accuracy of drilling guides for transfer from three-dimensional CT-based planning to placement of zygoma implants in human cadavers. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14 (01) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Harris D, Horner K, Gröndahl K. et al. E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (11) 1243-1253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012; 113 (06) 817-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 2014; 66 (01) 203-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 55-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (Suppl. 11) 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Joda T, Brägger U, Gallucci G. Systematic literature review of digital three-dimensional superimposition techniques to create virtual dental patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30 (02) 330-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vanderstuyft T, Tarce M, Sanaan B, Jacobs R, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Quirynen M. Inaccuracy of buccal bone thickness estimation on cone-beam CT due to implant blooming: an ex-vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (11) 1134-1143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Patel S, Brown J, Semper M, Abella F, Mannocci F. European Society of Endodontology position statement: Use of cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics: European Society of Endodontology (ESE) developed by. Int Endod J 2019; 52 (12) 1675-1678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Comparison of five cone beam computed tomography systems for the detection of vertical root fractures. J Endod 2010; 36 (01) 126-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Melo SL, Haiter-Neto F, Correa LR, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Comparative diagnostic yield of cone beam CT reconstruction using various software programs on the detection of vertical root fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42 (09) 20120459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 da Silveira PF, Vizzotto MB, Liedke GS, da Silveira HL, Montagner F, da Silveira HE. Detection of vertical root fractures by conventional radiographic examination and cone beam computed tomography—an in vitro analysis. Dent Traumatol 2013; 29 (01) 41-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Khedmat S, Rouhi N, Drage N, Shokouhinejad N, Nekoofar MH. Evaluation of three imaging techniques for the detection of vertical root fractures in the absence and presence of gutta-percha root fillings. Int Endod J 2012; 45 (11) 1004-1009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Patel S, Brady E, Wilson R, Brown J, Mannocci F. The detection of vertical root fractures in root filled teeth with periapical radiographs and CBCT scans. Int Endod J 2013; 46 (12) 1140-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Costa FF, Gaia BF, Umetsubo OS, Cavalcanti MG. Detection of horizontal root fracture with small-volume cone-beam computed tomography in the presence and absence of intracanal metallic post. J Endod 2011; 37 (10) 1456-1459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Costa FF, Gaia BF, Umetsubo OS, Pinheiro LR, Tortamano IP, Cavalcanti MG. Use of large-volume cone-beam computed tomography in identification and localization of horizontal root fracture in the presence and absence of intracanal metallic post. J Endod 2012; 38 (06) 856-859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kajan ZD, Taromsari M. Value of cone beam CT in detection of dental root fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41 (01) 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kim JH, Arita ES, Pinheiro LR, Yoshimoto M, Watanabe PCA, Cortes ARG. Computed tomographic artifacts in maxillofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (01) e78-e80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44 (01) 20140282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 De Grauwe A, Ayaz I, Shujaat S. et al. CBCT in orthodontics: a systematic review on justification of CBCT in a paediatric population prior to orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2019; 41 (04) 381-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hirschinger V, Hanke S, Hirschfelder U, Hofmann E. Artifacts in orthodontic bracket systems in cone-beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography. J Orofac Orthop 2015; 76 (02) 152-160 , 162–163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B. et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75 (02) 265-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y. et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75 (02) 270-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Nackaerts O, Depypere M, Zhang G, Vandenberghe B, Maes F, Jacobs R. SEDENTEXCT Consortium. Segmentation of trabecular jaw bone on cone beam CT datasets. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (06) 1082-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Shaheen E, Khalil W, Ezeldeen M. et al. Accuracy of segmentation of tooth structures using 3 different CBCT machines. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2017; 123 (01) 123-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Khalil W, EzEldeen M, Van De Casteele E. et al. Validation of cone beam computed tomography-based tooth printing using different three-dimensional printing technologies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121 (03) 307-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Maret D, Telmon N, Peters OA. et al. Effect of voxel size on the accuracy of 3D reconstructions with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41 (08) 649-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Jain S, Choudhary K, Nagi R, Shukla S, Kaur N, Grover D. New evolution of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: combining digital technologies. Imaging Sci Dent 2019; 49 (03) 179-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Beister M, Kalender WA. A novel forward projection-based metal artifact reduction method for flat-detector computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 2009; 7 54 (21) 6575-6591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 de-Azevedo-Vaz SL, Peyneau PD, Ramirez-Sotelo LR, Vasconcelos KdeF, Campos PS, Haiter-Neto F. Efficacy of a cone beam computed tomography metal artifact reduction algorithm for the detection of peri-implant fenestrations and dehiscences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121 (05) 550-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Yeung AWK, Azevedo B, Scarfe WC, Bornstein MM. Patient motion image artifacts can be minimized and re-exposure avoided by selective removal of a sequence of basis images from cone beam computed tomography data sets: a case series. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020; 129 (02) e212-e223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Men K, Dai J, Chen X, Li M, Zhang K, Huang P. Dual-energy imaging method to improve the image quality and the accuracy of dose calculation for cone-beam computed tomography. Phys Med 2017; 36: 110-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hoeschen C. Use of artificial intelligence for image reconstruction [in German]. Radiologe 2020; 60 (01) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Zhu G, Jiang B, Tong L, Xie Y, Zaharchuk G, Wintermark M. Applications of deep learning to neuro-imaging techniques. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Liang K, Zhang L, Yang H, Yang Y, Chen Z, Xing Y. Metal artifact reduction for practical dental computed tomography by improving interpolation-based reconstruction with deep learning. Med Phys 2019; 46 (12) e823-e834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hegazy MAA, Cho MH, Cho MH, Lee SY. U-net based metal segmentation on projection domain for metal artifact reduction in dental CT. Biomed Eng Lett 2019; 9 (03) 375-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar