Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography

Studio comparativo delle arcate dentarie mediante tomografia computerizzata multidetettore e tomografia computerizzata a fascio conico

  • Head And Neck Radiology/Radiologia Del Capo E Del Collo
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric and diagnostic performance of multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the study of the dental arches.

Materials and methods

Effective dose and dose to the main organs of the head and neck were evaluated by means of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) placed in an Alderson Rando anthropomorphic phantom and using a standard CBCT protocol and an optimised MSCT protocol. Five patients with occlusal plane ranging from 54 cm to 59 cm who needed close follow-up (range 1–3 months) underwent both examinations. Image quality obtained with CBCT and MSCT was evaluated.

Results

Effective dose and dose to the main organs of the head and neck were higher for MSCT than for CBCT. Image quality of CBCT was judged to be equivalent to that of MSCT for visualising teeth and bone but inferior for visualising soft tissues. Beam-hardening artefacts due to dental-care material and implants were weaker at CBCT than at MSCT.

Conclusions

When panoramic radiography is not sufficient in the study of the teeth and jaw bones, CBCT can provide identical information to MSCT, with a considerable dose reduction. MSCT is, however, indicated when evaluation of soft tissue is required.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo di questo lavoro è confrontare le performances dosimetriche e diagnostiche di tomografia computerizzata multidetettore (TCMD) e tomografia computerizzata a fascio conico (TCFC) nello studio delle arcate dentarie.

Materiali e metodi

Si è provveduto alla misurazione della dose alle strutture di capo e collo e della dose efficace con dosimetri a termoluminescenza (TLD) posti in un fantoccio antropomorfo Alderson Rando utilizzando un protocollo TCFC ed uno TCMD ottimizzato. Sono stati esaminati 5 pazienti, con circonferenza al piano occlusale entro un range prestabilito (54–59 cm) e che avevano necessità di effettuare controlli ravvicinati nel tempo (range 1-3 mesi), con entrambi i sistemi TC ed è stata valutata la qualità delle immagini ottenute.

Risultati

La dose efficace agli organi è superiore per la TCMD rispetto alla TCFC. La qualità delle immagini della TCFC è stata giudicata sovrapponibile alla TCMD nello studio dei denti e dell’osso, inferiore nella valutazione dei tessuti molli. Artefatti da indurimento del fascio dovuti alla presenza di materiale medicamentoso e protesico incidono negativamente sulla qualità dell’immagine maggiormente nel caso della TCMD rispetto alla TCFC.

Conclusioni

Lo studio delle strutture ossee può essere effettuato, se la radiografia ortopanoramica non è sufficiente, mediante TCFC, che fornisce informazioni sovrapponibili a quelle della TCMD con notevole risparmio di dose; la TCMD è indicata qualora sia necessario valutare anche i tessuti molli.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Bianchi SD, Roccuzzo M, Albrito F et al (1996) Dosi assorbite nella radiologia dentale. Radiol Med 92:114–121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Preda L, Rodriguez y Baena R, La Fianza A et al (1999) Computed tomography in dental implantation. Technical and methodological aspects. Radiol Med 98:447–453

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ludlow JB, Laster WS, See M et al (2007) Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:534–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scribano E, Ascenti G, Mazziotti S et al (2003) Computed tomography in dental implantology: medico-legal implications. Radiol Med 105:92–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A et al (1998) A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 8:1558–1564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Clinical applications of conebeam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vile C, Mangini M, Strocchi S et al (2006) Dosimetric and image quality assessment of different acquisition protocols of a novel 64 slices CT scanner. Progress in biomedical optics and imaging 7:61423G.1–61423G.7

    Google Scholar 

  8. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1996) Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: the skeleton. ICRP Publication n. 70, Pergamon Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1990) Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication n. 60, Pergamon Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  10. Villari N, Stecco A, Zatelli G (1999) Dosimetry in dental radiology: comparison of spiral computerized tomography and orthopantomography. Radiol Med 97:378–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Doyle P, Martin CJ, Robertson J (2006) Techniques for measurement of dose width product in panoramic dental radiography. Br J Radiol 79:142–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G (2004) Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 33:83–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lecomber AR, Yoneyama Y, Lovelock DJ et al (2001) Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30:255–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A et al (2003) Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 96:508–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohnen M, Kemper J, Mobes O et al (2002) Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 12:634–637

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fanucci E, Leporace M, Di Costanzo G et al (2006) Multidetector CT and dentascan software: dosimetric evaluation and technique improvement. Radiol Med 111:130–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S et al (2005) Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 56:413–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL et al (2006) Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-Cat. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 35:219–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hashimoto K, Arai Y, Iwai K et al (2003) A comparison of a new limited cone beam computed tomography machine for dental use with multidetector row helical CT machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95:371–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M et al (2006) Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Sci 48:27–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R et al (2007) A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:446–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heiland M, Pohlenz P, Blessmann M et al (2007) Cervical soft tissue imaging using a mobile CBCT scanner with a flat panel detector in comparison with corresponding CT and MRI data sets. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104:814–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Draenert FG, Coppenrath E, Herzog P et al (2007) Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 36:198–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Strocchi S, Colli V, Novario R et al (2007) Dedicated dental volumetric and total body multislice computed tomography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Progress in biomedical optics and imaging 8:65102I.1–65102I.8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Barresi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carrafiello, G., Dizonno, M., Colli, V. et al. Comparative study of jaws with multislice computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography. Radiol med 115, 600–611 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0520-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0520-5

Keywords

Parole chiave

Navigation