It is said that radiation dose of various cbct scanners is dependent on many factors like shape of beam, pulsing beam, tilt of head, algorithm, workstation, software, graphic card FOV, type of scanner etc etc. If all other parameters are kept constant, which machine gives the least radiation dose to patient? For orthodontic purposes.
At the moment, I should prefer the ICat FLX, se the article by L udlov in the AJODO dec 2013!
It is important that several FOV can be sele ted, The I Cat flx has those features. The Quick san + wil give you 3D radiographs wit a dose below a 2D ceph!
This seems to be tricky question as the big companies are involved. Researchers seem to be reluctant to come out openly and discuss the radiation safety measures being taken by companies. the fear may be that, "When we answer , we might enter into controversy with company" but if we dont discuss such issues at research platform, where else can we discuss then?
I am involved in lecturing on the use of CBCT in Dentistry. Postgraduate training is focussed on indications, improving image quality, selection of FOV, requirements for maintaining CBCT machines etc. The machines will evaluate, the indication will be adapted to the new machines. The industry will devellop new machines, software will improve. The discussion should be discussed during scientific meetings and at universities.
John Ludlow from U. North Carolina did a great presentation at the AAO in New Orleans. The AAO has his lecture on DVD. He directly compared many of the systems. And as Hero said John published his unbiased findings in AJODO Dec 2013. The iCAT FLX came out on top.
Off course I have that presentation on CD ( I did present a lecture on the future of orthodontics, myself: please look at that lecture when you get the CD!
Saturday morning 10 am
@Hero Breuning,
could you possibly provide your lecture here in RG please.
Thanks and regards
The question indeed not easy to answer...since different CBCTs at different FOV, mA, Kvp, resolution can produce different radiation dose, let alone the updates of their hardware and software; besides, we have to understand that, this radiation dose is also different from effective dose received by patients and staffs, depending on the different parts of body, and how far they are away from CBCT. Just like microCT and nanoCT, the more sophisticated machine, the more you could control and there is a long way to test them all...
I depends on "your goal of imaging". Remember as you reduce radiation dose, you reduce the resolution of the image (quality). For orthodontic diagnosis, a reduction in dose & resolution may not be significant. In say implant or TADS placement or pathology detection, you may need higher resolution for bone density, boundary conditions, etc. Each scan the doctor must decide if CBCT (or any radiograph 2D or 3D) is necessary to answer clinical questions. My personal opinion, 3D imaging gives us significantly more accurate "anatomic truth" information (airway, boundary conditions, TMJs, to name a few). See John Ludlow's article AJODO Dec 2013 and the link above from Ayman is good to review.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Histology