Use of CBCT in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review

Overview

Journal J Clin Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Nov 27

PMID 39598084

Authors

Alessandro Polizzi

Sara Serra

Rosalia Leonardi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

: The present scoping review aims to provide a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge, highlighting the strengths, limitations, and future directions, on the use of CBCT in orthodontic practice. : This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to identify eligible studies from the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The research question was formulated as follows: "What is the scientific evidence concerning the preferential use of 3D CBCT over 2D radiography in orthodontics"? : Through database searching, 521 records were identified, and ultimately, 37 studies that compared 3D CBCT with 2D conventional radiography were included. Of these, 16 articles regarded the use of CBCT for cephalometric analysis, 5 papers analyzed the evaluation of root resorption, 10 studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of root angulation and determining tooth position, and the remaining 6 articles were conducted for miscellaneous applications: determining the size of the nasopharyngeal airway (n = 2), miniscrew positioning (n = 1), estimating cervical vertebrae maturity (n = 1), and evaluating the correctness of the root location when placing digital indirect brackets (n = 1). : The choice between 3D CBCT or CBCT-generated radiography and conventional 2D radiography in orthodontics involves careful consideration of the specific clinical context, the complexity of the case, and the balance between the diagnostic advantages and the associated limitations. : Future studies with a prospective design and standardized imaging protocols are encouraged to facilitate the development of a consensus on the best practices.

References

Bouwens D, Cevidanes L, Ludlow J, Phillips C . Comparison of mesiodistal root angulation with posttreatment panoramic radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(1):126-32. PMC: 3036614. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.016. View

Giudice A, Leonardi R, Ronsivalle V, Allegrini S, Lagravere M, Marzo G . Evaluation of pulp cavity/chamber changes after tooth-borne and bone-borne rapid maxillary expansions: a CBCT study using surface-based superimposition and deviation analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 25(4):2237-2247. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03539-3. View

Michielsens H, Decreus J, Begnoni G, Verdonck A, Jacobs R, Willems G . Performance of the Malmgren Index for Assessing Root Resorption on 2D vs. 3D Radiographs: A Pilot Study. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(13). PMC: 10340771. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11131860. View

Alamadi E, Alhazmi H, Hansen K, Lundgren T, Naoumova J . A comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and conventional radiography in diagnosing the extent of root resorptions. Prog Orthod. 2017; 18(1):37. PMC: 5694742. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-017-0191-z. View

Ronsivalle V, Venezia P, Bennici O, DAnto V, Leonardi R, Giudice A . Accuracy of digital workflow for placing orthodontic miniscrews using generic and licensed open systems. A 3d imaging analysis of non-native .stl files for guided protocols. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):494. PMC: 10353103. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03113-9. View

Echevarria-Sanchez G, Arriola-Guillen L, Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lopez P, Palti-Menendez R, Guerrero M . Reliability of cephalograms derived of cone beam computed tomography versus lateral cephalograms to estimate cervical vertebrae maturity in a Peruvian population: A retrospective study. Int Orthod. 2020; 18(2):258-265. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.01.001. View

Isman O, Aktan A, Ertas E . Evaluating the effects of orthodontic materials, field of view, and artifact reduction mode on accuracy of CBCT-based caries detection. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 24(7):2487-2496. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03112-7. View

Colceriu-Simon I, Baciut M, Stiufiuc R, Aghiorghiesei A, Tarmure V, Lenghel M . Clinical indications and radiation doses of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Med Pharm Rep. 2019; 92(4):346-351. PMC: 6853038. DOI: 10.15386/mpr-1434. View

Pittayapat P, Limchaichana-Bolstad N, Willems G, Jacobs R . Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in orthodontics: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013; 17(2):69-91. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12034. View

10.

Cattaneo P, Bloch C, Calmar D, Hjortshoj M, Melsen B . Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(6):798-802. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.008. View

11.

Alqerban A, Willems G, Bernaerts C, Vangastel J, Politis C, Jacobs R . Orthodontic treatment planning for impacted maxillary canines using conventional records versus 3D CBCT. Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36(6):698-707. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt100. View

12.

Garib D, Calil L, Leal C, Janson G . Is there a consensus for CBCT use in Orthodontics?. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 19(5):136-49. PMC: 4296664. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.5.136-149.sar. View

13.

Jung P, Lee G, Moon C . Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography cephalometric measurements using a midsagittal projection and conventional two-dimensional cephalometric measurements. Korean J Orthod. 2015; 45(6):282-8. PMC: 4664904. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.282. View

14.

Jaju P, Jaju S . Cone-beam computed tomography: Time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016; 45(4):263-5. PMC: 4697012. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.263. View

15.

Ohiomoba H, Sonis A, Yansane A, Friedland B . Quantitative evaluation of maxillary alveolar cortical bone thickness and density using computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 151(1):82-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.05.015. View

16.

Savoldi F, Dagassan-Berndt D, Patcas R, Mak W, Kanavakis G, Verna C . The use of CBCT in orthodontics with special focus on upper airway analysis in patients with sleep-disordered breathing. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2024; 53(3):178-188. PMC: 11003665. DOI: 10.1093/dmfr/twae001. View

17.

Chien P, Parks E, Eraso F, Hartsfield J, Roberts W, Ofner S . Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009; 38(5):262-73. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/81889955. View

18.

Yilmaz H, Eglenen M . Comparison of the effect of using panoramic and cone-beam computed tomography on the accuracy of root position in indirect digital bracket placement: A retrospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021; 25(3):401-408. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12549. View

19.

Halazonetis D . From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(5):627-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.004. View

20.

Agrawal J, Agrawal M, Nanjannawar L, Parushetti A . CBCT in orthodontics: the wave of future. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013; 14(1):153-7. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1291. View