Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Uses of cone-beam computed tomography in San José, Costa Rica

  • Barba, Lucia (Specialization Program in Oral and Maxillofacial Imaging, Graduate School, Universidad de Talca) ;
  • Berrocal, Ana Luisa (Department of Diagnostic and Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Costa Rica) ;
  • Hidalgo, Alejandro (Specialization Program in Oral and Maxillofacial Imaging, Graduate School, Universidad de Talca)
  • Received : 2018.01.22
  • Accepted : 2018.05.02
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) use, indications, and exposure parameters in San $Jos{\acute{e}}$, Costa Rica. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. All CBCT examinations over a period of 6 months at 2 radiological centers in San $Jos{\acute{e}}$, Costa Rica were evaluated. The examinations were performed with Veraview EPOC X550 and Veraviewepocs 3D R100 equipment. The patients' age and sex, clinical indication for CBCT, region of interest (ROI), repeat examinations, specialty of the referring dentist, field-of-view (FOV), tube voltage (kV), tube current (mA), and radiation dose (${\mu}Gy$) were evaluated. Patients were classified by age as children (${\leq}12years$), adolescents(13-18 years), and adults(${\geq}19years$). Results: The mean age of the 526 patients was 49.4 years. The main indications were implant dentistry and dental trauma. The most frequent ROIs were posterior, while anterior ROIs were much less common. The highest percentage of repeat examinations was in children. Fifty-six percent of the referring dentists were specialists. The most commonly used FOV was small. The mean tube voltage and current were 79.8 kV and 7.4 mA for Veraview EPOC X550 and 89.9 kV and 6 mA for Veraviewepocs 3D R100, respectively. The mean doses for children, adolescents, and adults were $6.9{\mu}Gy$, $8.4{\mu}Gy$, and $7.8{\mu}Gy$, respectively. Conclusion: Although CBCT was most commonly used in adults for implant dentistry, most repeat examinations were in children, and the highest mean dose was in adolescents. Additional dose optimization efforts should be made by introducing low-dose protocols for children and adolescents.

Keywords

References

  1. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Martini PT, Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 1558-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050586
  2. Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 245-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448
  3. Pauwels R. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial imaging: dose matters. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2015; 165: 156-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv057
  4. European Commission. Radiation protection 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence-based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate for Energy; 2012.
  5. FDI World Dental Federation. FDI policy statement on radiation safety in dentistry: adopted by the FDI General Assembly: 13 September 2014, New Delhi, India. Int Dent J 2014; 64: 289-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12148
  6. ICRP, Rehani MM, Gupta R, Bartling S, Sharp GC, Pauwels R, et al. Radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). ICRP Publication 129. Ann ICRP 2015; 44: 9-127.
  7. White SC, Scarfe WC, Schulze RK, Lurie AG, Douglass JM, Farman AG, et al. The Image Gently in Dentistry campaign: promotion of responsible use of maxillofacial radiology in dentistry for children. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2014; 118: 257-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.06.001
  8. Hidalgo-Rivas JA, Theodorakou C, Carmichael F, Murray B, Payne M, Horner K. Use of cone beam CT in children and young people in three United Kingdom dental hospitals. Int J Paediatr Dent 2014; 24: 336-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12076
  9. Van Acker JW, Martens LC, Aps JK. Cone-beam computed tomography in pediatric dentistry, a retrospective observational study. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 1003-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1592-3
  10. Arancibia B, Schilling J, Schilling A, Correa-Beltran G, Hidalgo A. Usos de tomografia computarizada de haz conico en menores de 25 anos en Talca, Chile. Rev Cubana Estomatol 2017; 54: 1-11.
  11. 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: 267-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028
  12. Nemtoi A, Czink C, Haba D, Gahleitner A. Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120443. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120443
  13. Special Committee to Revise the Joint AAE/AAOMR Position Statement on use of CBCT in Endodontics. AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement: use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics 2015 Update. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015; 120: 508-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.07.033
  14. Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S, Ganz SD, Hildebolt C, Scarfe WC. 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: 817-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.005
  15. Adibi S, Paknahad M. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and osteometric examination in preoperative assessment of the proximity of the mandibular canal to the apices of the teeth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55: 246-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.10.024
  16. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 265-73. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039
  17. Donaldson K, O'Connor S, Heath N. Dental cone beam CT image quality possibly reduced by patient movement. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 91866873. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/91866873
  18. Spin-Neto R, Wenzel A. Patient movement and motion artefacts in cone beam computed tomography of the dentomaxillofacial region: a systematic literature review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 121: 425-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2015.11.019
  19. Kiljunen T, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, Kortesniemi M. Dental cone beam CT: a review. Phys Med 2015; 31: 844-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.004
  20. Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, Pauwels R, Bogaerts R, Jacobs R, et al. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 153-60. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/19389412
  21. Kalender W. Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. 3rd ed. Erlangen: Publicis Corporate Pub.; 2011.
  22. Pernicka F, McLean ID, International Atomic Energy Agency. Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology: an international code of practice. Technical reports series No. 457. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2007.
  23. Pauwels R, Seynaeve L, Henriques JC, de Oliveira-Santos C, Souza PC, Westphalen FH, et al. Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20150108. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150108
  24. Hidalgo Rivas JA, Horner K, Thiruvenkatachari B, Davies J, Theodorakou C. Development of a low-dose protocol for cone beam CT examinations of the anterior maxilla in children. Br J Radiol 2015; 88: 20150559. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150559

Cited by

  1. Trends in CBCT current practice within three UK paediatric dental departments vol.21, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-020-00526-w
  2. Patterns of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Utilization by Various Dental Specialties: A 4-Year Retrospective Analysis from a Dental and Maxillofacial Specialty Center vol.9, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081042