An Update on the Use of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Dentistry
Corresponding Author: Rodolfo Reda, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, Phone: +393287353196, e-mail: email@example.com
How to cite this article: Reda R, Zanza A, Bhandi S, et al. An Update on the Use of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Dentistry. World J Dent 2022;13(2):95–95.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) represents today the most widespread and most used 3D exam in dentistry. This diffusion is allowed by the fact that the equipment is the least voluminous, allows extremely reduced high-quality acquisition times compared to other tests, and its cost is lower than other diagnostics equipment, such as MRI.1,2 The ability to modify the field of view (FoV) while maintaining very high image quality, and the functionality of various image management and re-processing software, allow total use in dentistry, passing from the smallest FoVs for a few dental elements in endodontics, to larger FoVs, for example in orthodontics.3,4,5 Moreover, it also allows the study of the temporomandibular joint in gnathology, offering most of the indications useful to the clinician to complete the treatment plan, assisted by the use of MRI.6 The software prepared for orthodontic use, allow increasingly reliable results in the study of cephalometry, avoiding the clinician the need to prescribe multiple diagnostic exams (orthopantomography and several telecranium) to obtain all the information necessary to properly plan the orthodontic treatment.3,5,7 The possibility of adequately studying the bone anatomy and volume with this kind of devices allows to adequately plan complex implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, construction of surgical guides for more complex surgeries, by superimposing the radiographic images obtained with files for the reconstruction of models.8,9 In endodontics, a careful anatomical evaluation is increasingly important to complete the diagnosis, and to improve the prognosis of endodontic treatments, avoiding iatrogenic errors such as fractures of rotating instruments and perforations.10,11,12,13 In oral and maxillofacial surgery, even for orthodontic purposes, the exam offers all the information necessary to establish proximity to noble structures, with minimal deformations, which make it extremely reliable.3,14 The continuous development of equipment and management software that allow to further reduce the radiation dose to which the patient is exposed, and to improve the resolution of the images, allows to consider CBCT as the state of the art of dental imaging, and with further important margins for improvements for the future.
1. Jacobs R, Vranckx M, Vanderstuyft T, et al. CBCT vs other imaging modalities to assess peri-implant bone and diagnose complications: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2018;11(Supp. l):77–92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30109301/
3. Perrotti G, Baccaglione G, Clauser T, et al. Total face approach (TFA) 3D cephalometry and superimposition in orthognathic surgery: evaluation of the vertical dimensions in a consecutive series. Methods Protoc 2021;4(02):36. DOI: 10.3390/mps4020036
4. Alhammadi MS, Al-Mashraqi AA, Alnami RH, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of facial measurements of digital photographs and wrapped cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) photographs. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11(05):757. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050757
7. Perrotti G, Baccaglione G, Clauser T, et al. Total face approach (TFA): a novel 3D approach to describe the main cephalometric craniomaxillofacial parameters. Methods Protoc 2021;4(01):15. DOI: 10.3390/mps4010015
8. Di Bari R, Coronelli R, Cicconetti A. Radiographic evaluation of the symphysis menti as a donor site for an autologous bone graft in pre-implant surgery. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43(03):135–143. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2013.43.3.135
9. Di Bari R, Coronelli R, Cicconetti A. An anatomical radiographic evaluation of the posterior portion of the mandible in relation to autologous bone harvest procedures. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25(05):e475–e483. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000598
10. Zanza A, Seracchiani M, Di Nardo D, et al. A paradigm shift for torsional stiffness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a finite element analysis. J Endod 2021;47(07):1149–1156. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2021.04.017
11. Gambarini G, Miccoli G, D’Angelo M, et al. The relevance of operative torque and torsional resistance of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a preliminary clinical investigation. Saudi Endod J 2020;10:260–264.
12. Seracchiani M, Miccoli G, Reda R, et al. A comprehensive in vitro comparison of mechanical properties of two rotary endodontic instruments. World J Dent 2020;11(03):185–188.
13. Gambarini G, Piasecki L, Miccoli G, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography in the assessment of periapical lesions in endodontically treated teeth. Eur J Dent 2018;12(01):136–143. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_320_17
© The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.