Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aims: With the increasing use of CT (Computed Tomoghraphy) scans in dentistry especially in the implantology, there may be significant increases in the radiation exposure and its risk. During the last year’s ConeBeam Computed Tomoghraphy (CBCT) has been introduced as an imaging modality for dentistry. The aim of this review article was to present comprehensive information have been published, regarding the  radiation dose and image quality of Conventional Multislice Computed Tomography (MSCT), Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) and periapical radiography in dentistry imaging.

Materials and Methods: A review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Scopus database using key words (CBCT, MSCT, periapical radiography, radiation dose of dentistry and image quality). These searches were limited to the articles published between the years of 1993 to 2015.

Conclusion: In comparison to MSCT, CBCT had a short scanning times and lower radiation dose, but in comparison to periapical radiography, CBCT had higher radiation dose. In contrast, CBCT with flat panel detector had higher spatial resolution to MSCT. The periapical radiography also had a good image contrast and relatively high resolution. Generally, CBCT was suitable for hard tissue imaging and MSCT was preferred for soft tissue imaging.

Background and Aims: Pulpal exposures originated from the external cervical root resorptions have major effects on the treatment and prognosis. Therefore, the aim of this study was performed to compare the two different imaging systems-digital radiography with PSP (Photostimulable Phosphor) sensor in three horizontal different views and CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) images to assess the pulpal exposure in simulated cavity of external cervical root resorptions that was performed in 1398 in the School of Dentistry of Azad University.
Materials and Methods: 40 intact maxilla anterior teeth with straight roots were included. Teeth were randomly divided to two groups (20 teeth with and 20 without pulpal exposures). Each sample was assessed using PSP digital radiography (in 3 horizontal angles) and CBCT image system, to detect the presence of pulpal exposures. False negative and false positive results in 2 imaging procedures were judged with ratio test.
Results: The results showed in CBCT (P.P.V=85.7%) and (N.P.V=89.5%), and in digital intraoral radiography (P.P.V=80%) and (N.P.V=80%) in proximal defects. Ratio test showed that there were no significant differences in the proximal defects (P<0.4).
Conclusion: The results showed that there were no significant differences in detection of exposure in the proximal surfaces between two imaging systems.