ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title Cone Beam CT Is Superior To Multi-Slice CT For Implant Site Measurements
Clinical Question For patients requiring implant placement, does Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) that uses lower radiation dose provide measurements with improved accuracy compared with Multi-Slice CT (MSCT)?
Clinical Bottom Line CBCT imaging provides increased measurement accuracy (measurement error=2.3%) for implant placement compared with MSCT (measurement error=5.4%-6.6%) and uses lower radiation dose. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 18195249Suomalainen/20081 CadaverCase Study
Key resultsA cadaver mandible was imaged with CBCT and MSCT using variable radiation doses, and comparable vertical and horizontal linear measurements were made. Selected sites of the mandible were measured by 2 Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists (who were blinded from one-another) during two sessions at 2 week intervals. The mandible was cut into 4 mm thick slices at three marked locations and measurements were made and compared with the corresponding sites on the CT images. Mean measurement error values of CBCT (2.3%) were superior to MSCT measurements (5.4-6.6%) p=0.022. There was little difference in intra- and inter-examiner repeatability. The radiation dose values MSCT scanners were within the ranges of 3.2–30.7 mGy cm and 18.7–171.8 mGy cm, respectively. The dose values measured in CBCT were 2 mGy cm in the central scan region and 1 mGy cm in the peripheral region of the head phantom. Lowering the MSCT radiation dose to less than a quarter of its conventional original value did not significantly affect the measurement error.
Evidence Search #3 Search edentulous #2 Search accuracy of conventional CT#1 Search accuracy of cone beam CT
Comments on
The Evidence
In vitro studies are usually viewed as low level evidence; however, the cadaver specimen used in this study simulates an in vivo study. This study could not be done in vivo due to the need for verification of measurements and the use of multiple radiographic exposures. Therefore, this evidence can be considered good.
Applicability The study revealed the value of CBCT as an accurate treatment planning tool for implant placement. Radiation dose of CBCT is less than medical MSCT, however, because doses vary widely between different CBCT scanners and protocols used in MSCT settings, appropriate machine settings are essential to use the least radiation exposure. Although statistically significant, the superior accuracy of measurements achieved using CBCT may or may not be clinically significant considering the size of the mandible and space available for implant placement. Cone Beam Computed Tomography units are more convenient to dental patients compared to MSCT units that are located in medical facilities. The financial cost of CBCT is lower than that of MSCT and provides ease of patient positioning.
Specialty/Discipline (Public Health) (Oral Medicine/Pathology/Radiology) (Endodontics) (General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Orthodontics) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics)
Keywords Cone Beam CT, Multi-slice CT, implant, linear measurement
ID# 868
Date of submission: 04/28/2011spacer
E-mail faddoul@uthscsa.edu
Author Taoufik Faddoul
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Stephen Matteson, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail MATTESON@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
by Mohammed Barayan (San Antonio, TX) on 07/10/2012
Another study proves that the application of CBCT for the indicated purpose yielded good results comparable to those of MSCT. All two measuring methods were feasible and accuracy was statistically not different between the data acquired by MSCT and CBCT, although this study used different methods of collecting the data but yet agrees somehow to the conclusion of this cat. (PMID: 22411262 )
spacer

Return to Found CATs list