:: Volume 26, Issue 1 (1-2014) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2014, 26(1): 64-74 Back to browse issues page
The Efficacy of CBCT for Diagnosis and Treatment of Oral and Maxil-lofacial Disorders: A Systematic Review
Hosein Shaabaninejad1 , Ali Akbari Sari * 2, Mohammad reza Mobinizadeh3 , Sima Rafiei4 , Ali Mehrabi Sari5 , Yaser Safi6
1- Research Center for Health Services Management, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Kerman, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health and Knowledge Utilization Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Tehran, Iran , akbarisari@tums.ac.ir
3- PhD Candidate of Health Service Management, Department of Health Services Management, School of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University. Tehran, Iran
4- PhD student in Health Care Management, Department of Management and Health Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Tehran, Iran
5- DDS and Technical officer of Health Technology Assessment, Standardization and Tariff Office, Deputy of curative affairs, MOHME. Tehran, Iran
6- Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (9488 Views)

  Background and Aim: Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) has the ability to accomplish rapid volumetric image acquisition by its cone-shaped beam. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this imaging modality .

  Materials and Methods: A standard systematic review was performed. Medline (December 2012) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2012) were searched to identify evidence about the performance (sensitivity, specificity and safety) of CBCT compared with other standard diagnostic methods. The results of the included studies were analyzed using a qualitative method .

  Results: Thirty-one articles were included in the study the majority of them were diagnostic studies with a small sample size (n<10) . There was limited evidence about the effectiveness of this technology and the available evidence was scattered and sometimes controversial. At present, CBCT technology has greatly advanced and its image quality in terms of resolution is higher than that of MOCT. However, its contrast resolution is still lower than that of MOCT. Therefore, MOCT is preferred for soft tissue imaging. For evaluation of hard tissue in the maxillofacial region, a more clear image with higher resolution can be obtained by CBCT .

  Conclusion: CBCT technology is now commonly used in developed countries for obtaining detailed information regarding the oral and maxillofacial region and can greatly help clinicians in diagnosis and treatment of maxillofacial disorders . 

Keywords: CBCT, Imaging, Cone beam computed tomography, Dentistry
Full-Text [PDF 236 kb]   (2035 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Review | Subject: A Systematic Review
1. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Inter J Tech Assess in Health Care. 2007 Winter; 23(1):30-5.
2. Garber AM. Can technology assessment control health spending? Health Aff. 1994 Summer; 13 (3):115-26.
3. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen G. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Inter J Oral and Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Jun;38(6):609-25.
4. Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Jan;37(1):18-22.
5. Korbmacher PDH, Kahl-Nieke B, Schöllchen M, Heiland M. Value of two cone-beam computed tomography systems from an orthodontic point of view. J Orofacial Orthopedics/ Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2007 Jul; 68(4):278-89.
6. Lagravère M, Carey J, Ben-Zvi M, Packota G, Major P. Effect of object location on the density measurement and Hounsfield conversion in a NewTom 3G cone beam computed tomography unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Sep; 37(6): 305-8.
7. Veyre‐Goulet S, Fortin T, Thierry A. Accuracy of linear measurement provided by cone beam computed tomography to assess bone quantity in the posterior maxilla: a human cadaver study. Clini Imp Dent & Related Res. 2008 Dec; 10(4):226-30.
8. Özmeric N, Kostioutchenko I, Hägler G, Frentzen M, Jervøe-Storm P-M. Cone-beam computed tomography in assessment of periodontal ligament space: in vitro study on artificial tooth model. Clin Oral Invest. 2008 Sept; 12(3):233-9.
9. H, Wiese M, Wenzel A. Cone beam CT and conventional tomography for the detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007 May; 36(4):192-7.
10. Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Sept; 37(6): 319-24.
11. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol and Endod. 2003 Oct;96(4):508-13.
12. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4-and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004 Mar; 33(2):83-6.
13. Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, Denis K, White S, Coudyzer W, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Sept;37 (6):309-18.
14. Draenert F, Coppenrath E, Herzog P, Müller S, Mueller-Lisse U. 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. 2007 May;36(4):198-203.
15. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Ass. 2006 Feb; 72 (1):75-80.
16. Draenert FG, Gebhart F, Neugebauer C, Coppenrath E, Mueller-Lisse U. Imaging of bone transplants in the maxillofacial area by NewTom 9000 cone-beam computed tomography: A quality assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol and Endod. 2008 Jul; 106(1):e31-e5.
17. Lagravere MO, Fang Y, Carey J, Toogood RW, Packota GV, Major PW. Density conversion factor determined using a cone-beam computed tomography unit NewTom QR-DVT 9000. Dento Maxillofac Radiol. 2006 Nov; 35(6):407-9.
18. Schulze D, Blessmann M, Pohlenz P, Wagner KW, Heiland M. Diagnostic criteria for the detection of mandibular osteomyelitis using cone-beam computed tomography. Dento Maxillofac Radiol. 2006 Jul; 35(4):232-5.
19. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for Oral and Maxillofac Radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dento Maxillofac Radiol. 2006 Jul;35(4):219-26.
20. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dento Maxillofac Radiol. 2004 Sept; 33(5):291-4.
21. Araki K, Maki K, Seki K, Sakamaki K, Harata Y, Sakaino R, et al. Characteristics of a newly developed dentomaxillofacial X-ray cone beam CT scanner (CB Mercu Ray): system configuration and physical properties. Dento Maxillofac Radiol. 2004 Jan;33(1):51-9.
22. Hintze H, Wiese M, Wenzel A. Comparison of three radiographic methods for detection of morphological temporomandibular joint changes: panoramic, scanographic and tomographic examination. Dento Maxillofac Radiol. 2009 Mar; 38(3):134-40.
23. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Toogood RW, Major PW. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod and Dentofac Orthoped. 2008 Jul;134(1):112-6.
24. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Araki M, Iwai K, Sawada K, Akiyama Y. Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Sci. 2006 Mar; 48 (1):27-34.
25. Walker L, Enciso R, Mah J. Three-dimensional localization of maxillary canines with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod & Dentofac Orthoped. 2005 Oct; 128(4):418-23.
26. Kamburoğlu K, Barenboim S, Arıtürk T, Kaffe I. Quantitative measurements obtained by micro-computed tomography and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Dentomaxillo Radiol. 2008 Oct;37(7):385-91.
27. Stratemann S, Huang J, Maki K, Miller A, Hatcher D. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Feb; 37(2):80-93.
28. Simon JH, Enciso R, Malfaz J-M, Roges R, Bailey-Perry M, Patel A. Differential diagnosis of large periapical lesions using cone-beam computed tomography measurements and biopsy. J Endod. 2006 Feb;32(9):833-7.
29. Suomalainen A, Vehmas T, Kortesniemi M, Robinson S, Peltola J. Accuracy of linear measurements using dental cone beam and conventional multislice computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Jan;37(1):10-7.
30. Pinsky H, Dyda S, Pinsky R, Misch K, Sarment D. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements using cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006 Nov;35(6):410-6.
31. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT): Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur J of Radiol. 2010 Aug; 75(2): 265-9.
32. Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, Denis K, Hassan B, Li L, 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 Aug; 75(2): 270-4.
33. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Sept; 71(3):461-8.
34. Petersson A, Axelsson S, Davidson T, Frisk F, Hakeberg M, Kvist T, et al. Radiological diagnosis of periapical bone tissue lesions in endodontics: a systematic review. Inter Endod J. 2012 Sept; 45(9):783-801.

XML     Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 26, Issue 1 (1-2014) Back to browse issues page