ISSN : 0376-4672
1990년대 후반 소개된 Cone Beam ComputedTomography(CBCT)는 구강악안면방사선학 영역에서 획기적인 변화를 가져왔다1, 2). 기존의 일반 방사선촬영술에서는 불가능했던 치아와 악골의 3차원적인 진단이 가능하게 되었고, 일반 medical CT보다 낮은 방사선 노출량으로 영상을 획득할 수 있고, 개인용 컴퓨터와 소프트웨어로 쉽게 영상을 분석할 수 있고, 장비의 설치에 필요한 공간이 줄었으며, 비교적 저렴한 가격으로 장비를 구매할 수 있게 되었다. CBCT의 적용가능한 임상 분야 또한 악안면 경조직 병소의 진단과외과적 처치에 대한 접근, 임플란트 치료계획 및 술후평가3~5), 측두하악관절 병소의 진단 및 평가6~8), 치아및 안면골 외상의 진단1, 9, 10), 근관치료를 위한 치아와치근단 질환의 평가11), 교정치료와 악교정 수술을 위한술전 진단 및 술후 평가1, 12~14) 등으로 매우 다양하다. 특히, 임플란트 치료에 대한 관심과 대중화는 치조골의계측 및 3차원적 분석, 골질의 객관적 평가, 주요 해부학적 구조와의 관계 등을 비교적 쉽게 평가할 수 있는CBCT의 도입과 급속한 파급을 가능하게 하였다.
The emergence of Cone Beam Computed Tomography(CBCT) in the late 1990s represented an innovative advancement in the field of dental and maxillofacial radiology because it greatly reduced the radiation exposure to patients and offered 3D images easily. The 3D information generated by this technique brings the potential of improved diagnosis and treatment planning for a wide range of clinical applications in dentistry. The use of CBCT includes diagnosis and surgical assessment of the orofacial hard tissue lesions, dental implant treatment planning and postoperative evaluation, TMJ assessment, diagnosis of craniofacial fracture, orthodontics, endodontics, and so on. All CBCT examinations should be justified on an individualized needs. The clinical benefits to the patient for each CBCT scan must outweigh the potential risks associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. CBCT scans should be taken with initially obtained medical and dental histories of patients and a close clinical examination. CBCT should be considered as an imaging alternative of other conventional radiography in cases where the anatomical structures of interest may not be seen. The smallest possible field of view(FOV) and the lowest setting of tube current and scan time should be chosen, and the entire images scanned should be interpreted by a qualified expert.
1. Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:31-36.
2. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V, Hourdakis CJ. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT. Eur J Radiol 2005;56:413-417.
3. Sato S, Arai Y, Shinoda K, Ito K. Clinical application of a new cone-beam computerized tomography system to assess multiple twodimensional images for the preoperative treatment planning of maxillary implants: case reports. Quintessence Int 2004;35:525-528.
4. Kobayashi K, Shimoda S, Nakagawa Y, Yamamoto A. Accuracy in measurement of distance using limited cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:228-231.
5. Hatcher DC, Dial C, Mayorga C. Cone beam CT for pre-surgical assessment of implant sites. J Calif Dent Assoc 2003;31:825-833.
6. Honda K, Matumoto K, Kashima M, Takano Y, Kawashima S, Arai Y. Single air contrast arthrography for temporomandibular joint disorder using limited cone beam computed tomography for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:271-273.
7. Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, Stamatakis HC. Radiographic examination of the temporomandibular joint using cone beam computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:196-201.
8. Honda K, Arai Y, Kashima M, Takano Y, Sawada K, Ejima K, et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of the limited cone-beam CT (3DX) in the assessment of the thickness of the roof of the glenoid fossa of the temporomandibular joint. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:391-395.
9. Ziegler CM, Woertche R, Brief J, Hassfeld S. Clinical indications for digital volume tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31:126-130.
10. Heiland M, Schulze D, Rother U, Schmelzle R. Postoperative imaging of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures using digital volume tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:1387-1391.
11. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Schwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of conebeam volumetric tomography. J Endod 2007;33:1121-1132.
12. Aboudara CA, Hatcher D, Nielsen IL, Miller A. A three-dimensional evaluation of the upper airway in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:173-175.
13. Baumrind S, Carlson S, Beers A, Curry S, Norris K, Boyd RL. Using three-dimensional imaging to assess treatment outcomes in orthodontics: a progress report from the University of the Pacific. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:132-142.
14. Maki K, Inou N, Takanishi A, Miller AJ. Computerassisted simulations in orthodontic diagnosis and the application of a new cone beam X-ray computed tomography. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:95-101.
15. Cohnen M, Kemper J, Mobes O, Pawelzik J, Modder U. Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 2002;12:634-637.
16. Schulze D, Heiland M, Thurmann H, Adam G. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:83-86.
17. Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:508-513.
18. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:229-234.
19. Ngan DC, Kharbanda OP, Geenty JP, Darendeliler MA. Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Aust Orthod J 2003;19:67-75.
20. White SC. 1992 assessment of radiation risk from dental radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1992;21:118-126.
21. Danforth RA, Clark DE. Effective dose from radiation absorbed during a panoramic examination with a new generation machine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:236-243.
22. Gibbs SJ. Effective dose equivalent and effective dose: comparison for common projections in oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90:538-545.
23. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH. Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 2000;215:55-62.
24. Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012;21:78-86.
25. Baba R, Konno Y, Ueda K, Ikeda S. Comparison of flat-panel detector and image-intensifier detector for cone-beam CT. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2002;26:153-158.
26. Baba R, Ueda K, Okabe M. Using a flat-panel detector in high resolution cone beam CT for dental imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:285-290.
27. Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites EJ. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:187-195.
28. The SEDENTEXCT Project. Radiation Protection:Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology: Evidence Based Guidelines 2011 (v2.0Final). www.sedentexct.eu/files/guidelines _final.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2012.
29. Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, et al; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:561-562.
30. Joint Position Statement of the American Association of Endodontists and the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Use of cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics. www.aaomr.org/resource/resmgr /Docs/AAOMR-AAE_postition_paper_CB.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2012.
31. Academy of Osseointegration. 2010 guidelines of the Academy of Osseointegration for the provision of dental implants and associated patient care. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:620-627.
32. Scarfe WC. "All that glitters is not gold":standards for cone-beam computerized tomographic imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111:402-408.
