•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to evaluate cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) indications and distribution in pediatric, adolescent and adult patients. Methods: A total of 1013 CBCT images were reviewed in detail from the electronic patient database. The patient’s age, gender, CBCT indications and acquisition sites, referral departments, reason for referral, incidental findings in the imaging field and the presence of artifacts in the CBCT images were all recorded. The European DIMITRA project recommendations were used to categorize CBCT indications in the children and the European Guidelines were used for adults. Results: From a total of 1013 images; 5.3% were from children, 9.2% were from adolescents and 85.5% from were adult patients. The most common indication was impacted permanent teeth in children (37%) and adolescents (34%) and impacted 3rd molars (28.7%) and implant dentistry (25.8%) in adults. While the most common regional image was taken from children (37%) and adolescents (43.4%), it was determined that CBCT was taken from the maxilla+mandible (37.7%) in adults. Conclusion: Our results show that while attention was paid to use CBCT in children and adolescents in accordance with clinical guidelines and taking into account radiation protection protocols, it was used in the adult patient group in cases where it is not superior to traditional methods.

References

  1. İşman Ö, Yılmaz HH, Aktan AM, Yilmaz B. Indications for cone beam computed tomography in children and young patients in a Turkish subpopulation. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017; 27(3):183- 90.

  2. Gümrü B, Guldali M, Tarcin B, Idman E, Sertac Peker M. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography referral profile: Retrospective study in a Turkish paediatric subpopulation. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2021; 22(1):66-70.

  3. 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(5):336-48.

  4. Walliczek-Dworschak U, Diogo I, Strack L, Mandapathil M, Teymoortash A, Werner JA, Güldner C. Indications of cone beam CT in head and neck imaging in children. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017; 37(4):270-5.

  5. Barba L, Berrocal AL, Hidalgo A. Uses of conebeam computed tomography in San José, Costa Rica. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018; 48(2):103-9.

  6. Schulze RKW, Drage NA. Cone-beam computed tomography and its applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology. Clin Radiol. 2020; 75(9):647-57.

  7. Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ. Effective dose of dental CBCT-a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(1):20140197.

  8. Mallya S, Lam E. White and pharoah’s oral radiology: Principles and interpretation. 8th ed. Missouri: Elsevier; 2018.

  9. Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B; DIMITRA Research Group, http://www.dimitra.be. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol. 2018; 48(3):308-16.

  10. Kühnisch J, Anttonen V, Duggal MS, Spyridonos ML, Rajasekharan S, Sobczak M, Stratigaki E, Van Acker JWG, Aps JKM, Horner K, Tsiklakis K. Best clinical practice guidance for prescribing dental radiographs in children and adolescents: An EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020; 21(4):375-86.

  11. Kolca kog lu K S, Meh met A. Ço cu k D iş Hekimliğinde Konik Işinli Bilgisayarli Tomografi İstek Nedenleri [Indications of conic beam computerized tomography in pediatric dentistry]. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021; 30(1):68-73.

  12. Mehmet A, Yilmaz S. Bir Diş Hekimliği Fakültesinde Konik Işinli Bilgisayarli Tomografi Tetkiki İstenmesinin Sebepleri [Reasons for requesting cone beam computed tomography examination in a faculty of dentistry]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2019; 29(4):543-9.

  13. Abdelkar im A. Cone -Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics. Dent J (Basel). 2019; 7(3):89.

  14. SEDENTEXCT project. Radiation Protection No. 172 cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: Evidence based guidelines. Luxemburg: SEDENTEXCT project, 2012.

  15. 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(9):1558- 64.

  16. Horner K, O’Malley L, Taylor K, Glenny AM. Guidelines for clinical use of CBCT: A review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(1):20140225.

  17. 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(4):508-12.

  18. Gallichan N, Dixon C, Doughty F, Jorgenson K, Albadri S. Cone beam CT: How is it used in paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019; 29 (Suppl 2):4-74.

  19. Henein C, Bhatia SK, Drage N. the use of cone beam computed tomographic imaging in a paediatric dentistry department. Oral. 2021; 1(2):45-55.

  20. Van Acker JW, Martens LC, Aps JK. Cone-beam computed tomography in pediatric dentistry, a retrospective observational study. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(5):1003-10.

  21. Friedlander-Barenboim S, Hamed W, Zini A, Yarom N, Abramovitz I, Chweidan H, Finkelstein T, Almoznino G. Patterns of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) utilization by various dental specialties: A 4-year retrospective analysis from a dental and maxillofacial specialty center. Healthcare (Basel). 2021; 9(8):1042.

  22. Yalda FA, Holroyd J, Islam M, Theodorakou C, Horner K. Current practice in the use of cone beam computed tomography: a survey of UK dental practices. Br Dent J. 2019; 226(2):115-24.

  23. Hol C, Hellén-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Møystad A. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015; 73(3):195-201.

  24. Leung YY, Cheung LK. Risk factors of neurosensory deficits in lower third molar surgery: An literature review of prospective studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40(1):1-10.

  25. Tantanapornkul W, Okouchi K, Fujiwara Y, Yamashiro M, Maruoka Y, Ohbayashi N, Kurabayashi T. A comparative study of conebeam computed tomography and conventional panoramic radiography in assessing the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103(2):253-9.

  26. Issrani R, Prabhu N, Sghaireen M, Alshubrmi HR, Alanazi AM, Alkhalaf ZA, Alnusayri MO, Aljohani FM, Khan ZA. Comparison of digital OPG and CBCT in assessment of risk factors associated with inferior nerve injury during mandibular third molar surgery. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(12):2282.

  27. Suomalainen A, Ventä I, Mattila M, Turtola L, Vehmas T, Peltola JS. Reliability of CBCT and other radiographic methods in preoperative evaluation of lower third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109(2):276-84.

  28. Clé-Ovejero A, Sánchez-Torres A, Camps-Font O, Gay-Escoda C, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda- Castellón E. Does 3-dimensional imaging of the third molar reduce the risk of experiencing inferior alveolar nerve injury owing to extraction?: A metaanalysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148(8):575-83.

  29. Matzen LH, Berkhout E. Cone beam CT imaging of the mandibular third molar: A position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019; 48(5):20190039.

  30. de Toledo Telles-Araújo G, Peralta-Mamani M, Caminha RDG, de Fatima Moraes-da-Silva A, Rubira CMF, Honório HM, Rubira-Bullen IRF. CBCT does not reduce neurosensory disturbances after third molar removal compared to panoramic radiography: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 24(3):1137-49.

  31. Kurtuldu E, Alkis HT, Yesiltepe S, Sumbullu MA. Incidental findings in patients who underwent cone beam computed tomography for implant treatment planning. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020; 23(3):329-36.

  32. Cha JY, Mah J, Sinclair P. Incidental findings in the maxillofacial area with 3-dimensional conebeam imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(1):7-14.

  33. Edwards R, Alsufyani N, Heo G, Flores-Mir C. The frequency and nature of incidental findings in large-field cone beam computed tomography scans of an orthodontic sample. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15(1):37.

  34. Sancho-Puchades M, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. In vitro assessment of artifacts induced by titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconium dioxide implants in cone-beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26(10):1222-8.

  35. Nardi C, Borri C, Regini F, Calistri L, Castellani A, Lorini C, Colagrande S. Metal and motion artifacts by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental and maxillofacial study. Radiol Med. 2015; 120(7):618-26.

  36. Yıldızer Keriş E. Effect of patient anxiety on image motion artefacts in CBCT. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17(1):73.

  37. Spin-Neto R, Matzen LH, Schropp L, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Movement characteristics in young patients and the impact on CBCT image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016; 45(4):20150426.

  38. Sawicki P, Zawadzki PJ, Regulski P. The impact of cone-beam computed tomography exposure parameters on peri-implant artifacts: A literature review. Cureus. 2022; 14(3):e23035.

  39. Ladeira DB, da Cruz AD, de Almeida SM. Digital panoramic radiography for diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint: CBCT as the gold standard. Braz Oral Res. 2015; 29(1):S1806- 83242015000100303.

  40. Dagassan-Berndt DC, Zitzmann NU, Walter C, Schulze RK. Implant treatment planning regarding augmentation procedures: Panoramic radiographs vs. cone beam computed tomography images. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(8):1010-6.

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.