Evaluation Outcome of Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Treatment Plan Success and Failure: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Depaerment of Implantology, School of Dentistry, San Sebastián University, Santiago, Chile

2 Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

3 School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

4 School of Dentistry, Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapour University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

Background and aim: It is worth noting that cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) can differentiate between success and failure of treatment plans. Therefore, the main objective of this systematic review was to fulfil an outcome evaluation of CBCT for treatment plan success and failure.
Materials and methods: For this purpose, the databases of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) were searched to perform a systematic review of the related literature on the subject matter published up to May 2020. To manage the study titles electronically, the EndNote x8 software was further utilized. Employing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), this systematic review was accordingly completed. Two reviewers then assessed the quality of the selected studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.
Results: A total number of 354 relevant titles and abstracts were retrieved during the electronic searches into the subject-matter literature. Ultimately, six studies were in line with the inclusion criteria in this systematic review. As well, the sample size in all studies was found to be 388 cases, and CBCT had been exercised in each one. Moreover, the follow-up timing of CBCT scans was not the same in the selected studies.

Conclusion: CBCT can be useful in successful treatment, CBCT systems have highly efficient for reconstructing the 3D image of the cortical bone with a thickness of more than 1 mm vs less than 0.5 mm thickness.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Koerich L, Tufekci E, Lindauer SJ. 3D Imaging to Assess Growth and Treatment Effects. Craniofacial 3D Imaging: Springer; 2019. p. 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00722-5_3.
  2. Hersberger‐Zurfluh MA, Papageorgiou SN, Motro M, Kantarci A, Will LA, Eliades T. Vertical growth in mono‐and dizygotic twins: A longitudinal cephalometric cohort study. Orthodontics & craniofacial research. 2020;23(2):192-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12358.
  3. Aoki J, Shinozuka K, Yamagata K, Nakamura R, Sato T, Ohtani S, Ogisawa S, Yanagawa K, Tonogi M. Cephalometric analysis of the pharyngeal airway space after maxillary advancement surgery. Journal of oral science. 2019;61(4):529-33. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.18-0422.
  4. Swennen GR, Schutyser FA, Hausamen JE, editors. Three-dimensional cephalometry: a color atlas and manual. Springer Science & Business Media; 2005.
  5. Velásquez RL, Coro JC, Londoño A, McGorray SP, Wheeler TT, Sato S. Three-dimensional morphological characterization of malocclusions with mandibular lateral displacement using cone-beam computed tomography. CRANIO®. 2018;36(3):143-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08869634.2017.1300994.
  6. Havron AG, Aronovich S, Shelgikar AV, Kim HL, Conley RS. 3D Airway changes using CBCT in patients following mandibular setback surgery±maxillary advancement. Orthodontics & craniofacial research. 2019;22:30-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12291.
  7. Zasčiurinskienė E, Lund H, Lindsten R, Jansson H, Bjerklin K. Outcome of orthodontic treatment in subjects with periodontal disease. Part III: a CBCT study of external apical root resorption. European journal of orthodontics. 2019;41(6):575-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz040.
  8. De Grauwe A, Ayaz I, Shujaat S, Dimitrov S, Gbadegbegnon L, Vande Vannet B, Jacobs R. CBCT in orthodontics: a systematic review on justification of CBCT in a paediatric population prior to orthodontic treatment. European journal of orthodontics. 2019;41(4):381-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy066.
  9. Palomo JM, El H, Stefanovic N, Bazina M. Diagnostic Value of 3D Imaging in Clinical Orthodontics. Craniofacial 3D Imaging: Springer; 2019. p. 113-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00722-5_7.
  10. Uribe FA, Farrell B. Surgery-first approach in the orthognathic patient. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics. 2020;32(1):89-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2019.08.009.
  11. Thurzo A, Javorka V, Stanko P, Lysy J, Suchancova B, Lehotska V, Valkovic L, Makovnik M. Digital and manual cephalometric analysis. Bratislavske lekarske listy. 2010;111(2):97-100.
  12. Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chung-Chen Yao J, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. The Angle orthodontist. 2004;74(2):155-61.
  13. Kusnoto B. Two-dimensional cephalometry and computerized orthognathic surgical treatment planning. Clinics in plastic surgery. 2007;34(3):417-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2007.04.005.
  14. Jonnalagadda VN, Bobbala JR, Goskonda VR, Annamaneni RR, Vallapareddy D. Accuracy of surgical prediction following mandibular advancement. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. 2018;52(4_suppl1):55-61.
  15. Naoumova J, Lindman R. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009;31(3):247-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn110.
  16. Khader DA, Peedikayil FC, Chandru TP, Kottayi S, Namboothiri D. Reliability of One Ceph software in cephalometric tracing: A comparative study. SRM Journal of Research in Dental Sciences. 2020;11(1):35.
  17. Mahto RK, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Sardana HK. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained from two computerized cephalometric softwares with manual tracings. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. 2016;50(3):162-70.
  18. Leonardi R, Giordano D, Maiorana F, Spampinato C. Automatic cephalometric analysis: a systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008;78(1):145-51.
  19. Van Vlijmen OJ, Maal TJ, Bergé SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers‐Jagtman AM. A comparison between two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. European journal of oral sciences. 2009;117(3):300-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00633.x.
  20. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2007;29(1):105-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl065.
  21. Tan SS, Ahmad S, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2011;33(5):537-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq116.
  22. Liu BJ, Huang HK. Picture archiving and communication systems and electronic medical records for the healthcare enterprise. Biomedical Information Technology: Elsevier; 2020. p. 105-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816034-3.00004-3.
  23. Hasani N, Hosseini A, Sheikhtaheri A. Effect of Implementation of Picture Archiving and Communication System on Radiologist Reporting Time and Utilization of Radiology Services: A Case Study in Iran. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2020;33:595-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00314-z.
  24. Panic N, Leoncini E, De Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analysesStefania Boccia. European Journal of Public Health. 2013;8(12):e83138. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckt124.018.
  25. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non‐randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ journal of surgery. 2003;73(9):712-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.
  26. Shokri A, Khajeh S, Khavid A. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on lateral cephalograms obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans with digital lateral cephalometric radiography: an in vitro study. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2014;25(5):1710-3. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000908.
  27. Shokri A, Jamalpour MR, Khavid A, Mohseni Z, Sadeghi M. Effect of exposure parameters of cone beam computed tomography on metal artifact reduction around the dental implants in various bone densities. BMC medical imaging. 2019;19(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-019-0334-4.
  28. Shokri A, Jamalpour MR, Eskandarloo A, Godiny M, Amini P, Khavid A. Performance of cone beam computed tomography systems in visualizing the cortical plate in 3d image reconstruction: An in vitro study. The open dentistry journal. 2018;12:586-595. doi: 10.2174/1874210601812010586.
  29. Nikkerdar N, Khavid A, Golshah A, Karimi A, Ahmadi MM. Anatomical Variations of the Nasopalatine Canal Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in a Subpopulation Residing in West of Iran. Annals of Dental Specialty Vol. 2018;6(3):311.
  30. Naseri M, Kangarlou A, Khavid A, Goodini M. Evaluation of the quality of four root canal obturation techniques using micro-computed tomography. Iranian endodontic journal. 2013;8(3):89-93.
  31. Shokri A, Khajeh S, Khavid A, Tabari S, Yarmohammadi S. Influence of Head Orientation in Linear Measurement for Implant Planning in Cone Beam Computed Tomography. The journal of contemporary dental practice. 2015;16(7):542-6. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1719 .
  32. Mehta V, Ahmad N. Cone beamed computed tomography in pediatric dentistry: Concepts revisited. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2020;10(2):210-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.03.013.
  33. Esmaeili EP, Ilo AM, Waltimo-Sirén J, Ekholm M. Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT scans of impacted maxillary canines. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2020;24(2):897-905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02904-1.
  34. Weiss R, Read-Fuller A. Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review. Dentistry journal. 2019;7(2):52. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7020052.
  35. Patel S, Brown J, Pimentel T, Kelly RD, Abella F, Durack C. Cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics–a review of the literature. International endodontic journal. 2019;52(8):1138-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13115.
  36. Chang E, Lam E, Shah P, Azarpazhooh A. Cone-beam computed tomography for detecting vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review. Journal of endodontics. 2016;42(2):177-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.10.005.
  37. Song H, Salama JK, Lee WR, Wu Q. Nonuniform Planning Target Volume Margins for Prostate Bed on the Basis of Surgical Clips on Daily Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Advances in radiation oncology. 2019;4(1):186-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2018.09.014.
  38. Navarro RD, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Fernandes TM, Oliveira GF, Conti AC, Almeida MR, Almeida RR. Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2013;21(2):167-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757201302326.
  39. Lin HS, Li JD, Chen YJ, Lin CC, Lu TW, Chen MH. Comparison of measurements of mandible growth using cone beam computed tomography and its synthesized cephalograms. Biomedical engineering online. 2014;13(1):133. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-13-133.
  40. Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Syriopoulos K, van der Stelt P. Assessment of metal artefact reduction around dental titanium implants in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2014;43(7):20140019.
  41. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2015;44(1):20140238.
  42. Liedke GS, Spin-Neto R, da Silveira HE, Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Accuracy of detecting and measuring buccal bone thickness adjacent to titanium dental implants—a cone beam computed tomography in vitro study. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2018;126(5):432-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.06.004.
  43. Pour DG, Arzi B, Shamshiri AR. Assessment of slice thickness effect on visibility of inferior alveolar canal in cone beam computed tomography images. Dental research journal. 2016;13(6):527-531.
  44. Kalbassi S, Chiong FW, Cheau HY, Chew WH. Quantitative three-dimensional assessment of buccal alveolar bone thickness with dental cone-beam computed tomography. 2017;28(19).
Volume 2, Issue 2
June 2020
Pages 46-51
  • Receive Date: 02 April 2020
  • Revise Date: 21 May 2020
  • Accept Date: 29 May 2020
  • First Publish Date: 01 June 2020