The fundaments of cbct and its use for evaluation of paranasal sinuses: review of literature

Abstract

Image methods such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT) and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) are powerful tools to help clinicians on diagnosis and preoperative planning. They provide an accurate view of regional anatomy, anatomical variations and the presence of diseases. Compared to CT, CBCT produces images with adequate spatial resolution with smaller fields of view at lower radiation doses. It has emerged as a potential alternative for obtaining 3D evaluation of the paranasal sinus at relatively modest costs. The aim of this review was to verify whether CBCT images offer an additional value to the evaluation of paranasal sinus.

Radiographic Evaluation of Infraorbital Canal Protrusion into Maxillary Sinus Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

“…Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides an excellent soft tissue contrast resolution, but possesses the limitation of poor spatial resolution and lack of bony details [ 11 ]. CBCT is an exciting technology in the field of oral and maxillofacial radiology but is generally accepted as one of the pioneering imaging techniques for paranasal sinus evaluation by dentists, maxillofacial radiologists, and otolaryngologists [ 12 , 13 ]. CBCT image evaluation for the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses provide many advantages, such as low radiation doses when compared with CT and low cost when compared with MRI [ 13 ].…”

“…CBCT is an exciting technology in the field of oral and maxillofacial radiology but is generally accepted as one of the pioneering imaging techniques for paranasal sinus evaluation by dentists, maxillofacial radiologists, and otolaryngologists [ 12 , 13 ]. CBCT image evaluation for the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses provide many advantages, such as low radiation doses when compared with CT and low cost when compared with MRI [ 13 ]. An isotropic voxel of a very small size in CBCT imaging contributes to a high spatial resolution and imaging quality for bone tissues, but results in poor soft tissue resolution as a consequence [ 14 ].…”