Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery
Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 4/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Article

Effect of Milliamperage Reduction on Pre-surgical Implant Planning Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography by Surgeons of Varying Experience

Authors: N. El Sahili, S. David-Tchouda, S. Thoret, I. Nasseh, A. Berberi, T. Fortin

Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Differences in CBCT units and the lack of standardization result in exposure to radiation doses beyond what is required for diagnostic purposes, especially when planning the surgical placement of dental implants.

Aim

To assess the influence of low- and high-dose milliamperage settings on CBCT images for objective and subjective implant planning among senior specialists (5 years of experience) and juniors (fresh graduates).

Materials and Methods

Two dry skulls (4 hemi-maxillary segments of the maxilla and 4 hemi-maxillary segments of the mandible) were scanned under low (2 mA) and high (6.3 mA) dosage settings using the Carestream CS 9300 machine. Cross-sectional slices of both image qualities were evaluated by the 5 seniors and the 5 juniors for subjective image utility for implant planning and for objective linear bone measurements.

Results

There were no significant differences in bone measurements taken on high- or low-dose images by all seniors and by the majority of juniors (p > 0.05). In qualitative image assessments, there was independence between assessment and image quality for almost all observers. For planning posterior mandibular implant placement, increased dosage improved concordance and kappa values between low- and high-dose images for senior observers (from K = 0.287 at low dose to K = 0.718 at high does) but not for juniors (K = 0.661 and K = 0.509 for low and high dose, respectively).

Conclusion

Reduction in milliamperage did not affect diagnostic image quality for objective bone measurements and produced sufficient concordance for qualitative assessment. Judicious optimization of milliamperage settings based on individual diagnostic requirements can result in significant dose reduction without compromising diagnostic decision-making.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis I (1998) A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 8(9):1558–1564CrossRef
2.
Fortin T, Champleboux G, Bianchi S, Buatois H, Coudert J (2002) Precision of transfer of preoperative planning for oral implants based on cone-beam CT-scan images through a robotic drilling machine. Clin Oral Implants Res 13(6):651–656CrossRef
3.
Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R (2014) Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 4(29 Suppl):55–77CrossRef
4.
Scherer MD (2014) 0 Presurgical implant-site assessment and restoratively driven digital planning. Dent Clin North Am 58(3):561–595CrossRef
5.
Pauwels R, Theodorakou C, Walker A et al (2012) Dose distribution for dental cone beam CT and its implication for defining a dose index. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 7:583–593CrossRef
6.
Al-Ekrish AA (2012) Effect of exposure time on the accuracy and reliability of cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions in dry skulls. Saudi Dent J 24(3):127–134CrossRef
7.
Morant J, Salvadó M, Hernández-Girón I et al (2013) Dosimetry of a cone beam CT device for oral and maxillofacial radiology using Monte Carlo techniques and ICRP adult reference computational phantoms. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42(3):925–928CrossRef
8.
9.
Jaju PP, Jaju SP (2015) Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent 45(4):263–265CrossRef
10.
Horner K (2013) Cone-beam computed tomography: time for an evidence-based approach. Prim Dent J 2(1):22–31CrossRef
11.
Goulston R, Davies J, Horner K, Murphy F (2016) Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 45(3):201–204CrossRef
12.
Tyndall DA, Price JB, Tetradis S et al (2012) Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 113(6):817–826CrossRef
13.
Demeslay J, Vergez S, Serrano E et al (2016) Morphological concordance between CBCT and MDCT: a paranasal sinus-imaging anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat 38(1):71–78CrossRef
14.
Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B et al (2012) Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 81(2):267–271CrossRef
15.
Xu J, Reh D, Carey JP, Mahesh M, Siewerdsen J (2012) Technical assessment of a cone-beam CT scanner for otolaryngology imaging: image quality, dose, and technique protocols. Med Phys 39(8):4932–4942CrossRef
16.
Sur J, Seki K, Koizumi H, Nakajima K, Okano T (2010) Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 110(3):e29–e33CrossRef
17.
De Vos W, Casselmann J, Swennen GR (2009) Cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the littérature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:609–625CrossRef
18.
19.
Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S (2017) Determination of size-specific exposure settings in dental cone-beam CT. Eur Radiol 27(1):279–285CrossRef
20.
Dawood A, Brown J, Sauret-Jackson V, Purkayastha S (2012) Optimization of cone beam CT exposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(1):70–74CrossRef
21.
Slagter KW, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ (2015) Inter-and intraobserver reproducibility of buccal bone measurements at dental implants with cone beam computed tomography in the esthetic region. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1(1):8
22.
Ganguly R, Ramesh A, Pagni S (2016) The accuracy of linear measurements of maxillary and mandibular edentulous sites in cone-beam computed tomography images with different fields of view and voxel sizes under simulated clinical conditions. Imaging Sci Dent 46(2):93–101CrossRef
23.
Vasconcelos TV, Neves FS, de Freitas DQ, Campos PSF, Watanabe PCA (2014) Influence of the milliamperage settings on cone beam computed tomography imaging for implant planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(6):1364–1368CrossRef
24.
Rehani M, Gupta R, Bartling S et al (2015) ICRP publication 129: Radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). SAGE Publications, London
25.
Horner K, Jacobs R, Schulze R (2013) Dental CBCT equipment and performance issues. Radiat Prot Dosim 2153(2):212–218CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effect of Milliamperage Reduction on Pre-surgical Implant Planning Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography by Surgeons of Varying Experience
Authors
N. El Sahili
S. David-Tchouda
S. Thoret
I. Nasseh
A. Berberi
T. Fortin
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0972-8279
Electronic ISSN: 0974-942X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1075-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery 4/2018 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Frontal Branch of the Superficial Temporal Artery Advancement Flap with Burrow’s Triangles Excision for Temporal Defect Reconstruction

Review Paper

Arthroscopic Management of Synovial Chondromatosis of the Temporomandibular Joint. Case Series and Systematic Review

Clinical Paper

Efficacy of Titanium Mesh Osteosynthesis in Maxillofacial Fractures

Case Report

Solitary Fibrous Tumor of the Tongue: An Uncommon Cause of Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Original Article

Ultrasound as an Assessment Method in Predicting Difficult Intubation: A Prospective Clinical Study

Original Article

Comparison of Efficacy of Halstead, Vazirani Akinosi and Gow Gates Techniques for Mandibular Anesthesia