Skip to main content
PMC home page
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology logoLink to Dentomaxillofacial Radiology
. 2020 Nov 23;49(8):20200145. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20200145

Cone beam computed tomography in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a two-decade overview

Hugo Gaêta-Araujo 1,2,1,2,✉, Tamara Alzoubi 1, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos 1, Kaan Orhan 1,3,1,3, Ruben Pauwels 4,5,4,5, Jan W Casselman 6, Reinhilde Jacobs 1,7,1,7
PMCID: PMC7719864  PMID: 32501720

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate and summarise features of currently and formerly available cone beam CT (CBCT) devices from 1996 to 2019. Additionally, a recommendation for standardised reporting of CBCT characteristics was provided.

Methods and materials:

Information about the features of all available CBCT devices was obtained from the manufacturers’ available data. Moreover, site visits to newly developed CBCT machines’ manufacturers were performed in order to obtain relevant information.

Results:

A total of 279 CBCT models from 47 manufacturers located in 12 countries (Brazil, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Thailand, and USA) could be listed. Overall, wide variations in CBCT features and technical specifications were identified.

Conclusions:

CBCT in dentomaxillofacial radiology is a generic term applicable to a broad range of CBCT machines and features. Experimental outcomes and literature statements regarding radiation doses, imaging performance and diagnostic applicability of dental CBCT cannot be simply transferred from one CBCT model to another considering a wide variation in technical characteristics and clinical diagnostic performance. The information tabulated in the present study will be later provided on the International Association of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology website (www.iadmfr.one).

Keywords: radiology, three-dimensional imaging, cone-beam computed tomography, tomography scanners

Introduction

Dentistry has witnessed tremendous advances over the past decade, with a shift towards digital dentistry, not only for diagnostics but also for surgical planning and treatment. In dentomaxillofacial diagnostics, traditional radiologic examinations are usually limited to two-dimensional (2D) views such as intraoral and panoramic radiographies.1,2 For routine diagnostics, these imaging modalities may often suffice. However, the evolution of diagnostics and treatment in different dental disciplines has raised the need for three-dimensional (3D) imaging to overcome anatomical overlap and distortions inherent to 2D radiology.1,3,4

Technological advances in radiological imaging have led to the introduction of new 3D imaging methods in many fields of radiology, including dentomaxillofacial radiology.5 CT was the first technology to allow visualisation of both hard and soft tissues of the facial bones through the ability to acquire multiple consecutive cross-sectional images.5 Since its introduction, CT imaging of the orofacial region has been of interest as a clinical tool. Since the late 1980s, CT was used for surgical planning in oral and maxillofacial surgery and early endosseous implant placement.6–8 Considering high radiation dose, costs, and space requirements for CT, dedicated devices for 3D imaging in oral healthcare were developed in the 1990s: dental cone beam CT (CBCT),5,9,10 which was available on the market in the late 1990s.1,4,11 This modality may sometimes be denoted as digital volume tomography (DVT), particularly in German-speaking regions.12 Prior to dental CBCT, this imaging modality was applied in medical radiology for angiography, and it is currently used for different other applications such as otorhinolaryngologic (ears, nose and throat—ENT), interventional and intraoperative imaging, cardiac imaging, radiotherapy, musculoskeletal (incl. extremities and spine), breast and peripheral bone imaging.1,3,12–16

Since its introduction in dentomaxillofacial radiology, CBCT has become a widely accepted radiographic tool for diagnosis and treatment planning in oral healthcare.2 During the past two decades, the number of CBCT models has increased markedly, with new models being developed and released continuously.1,17 In 2008, 23 different CBCT devices were reported,18 which increased to 43 devices in 2013.1 Meanwhile, the number of devices increased dramatically along with its increased application in all dental specialties. CBCT is now widespread used and surely not only in relation to diagnosis, yet also in relation to presurgical planning, dental treatment and post-surgical follow-up (such as with grafting procedures).

Dental CBCT devices exhibit wide variability in terms of physical dimensions, features, imaging modalities available, and essential parameters such as X-ray source specifications and exposure parameters, field of view (FOV), and imaging geometry.19 At this moment, there is no recent overview available of all available systems. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to evaluate and summarise currently available CBCT devices and their features. Additionally, a recommendation for standardised reporting of CBCT characteristics was provided

Methods and materials

Medical and grey literature about CBCT devices were reviewed. First, previously published reviews were analysed to assemble CBCT devices used for dentomaxillofacial applications reported in medical literature.1,5,18,20–22 Afterwards, information of CBCT devices that were not found in medical literature was gathered using a search engine. All CBCT devices on the market between 1996 and 2019 were included in this study.

Information about the features of each device was obtained from published articles, available data from manufacturers’ websites, manuals, and brochures. Most of the missing or incomplete data were completed and verified at the International Dental Show in Cologne, Germany, in 2017 and 2019 and at the European Congress of Radiology in Vienna, Austria, in 2018 and 2019, as well as at the European Congress of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology in Luzern, Switzerland, in 2018.

Features collected about all these devices were:

  • Manufacturer.

  • Country of manufacturing.

  • CBCT Series.

  • CBCT Model (machines with the optional cephalometric attachment were considered as different models, as well those with different optional fields of view).

  • Availability on the market.

  • Imaging modalities available: CBCT only, 2-in-1 (CBCT and panoramic radiography), 3-in-1 (CBCT, panoramic and cephalometric radiography).

  • Dimensions of width, depth, and height, in meters.

  • Weight in kilograms.

  • Patient position condition: standing, sitting (i.e. built-in chair) or supine.

  • Software available with the CBCT unit.

  • Kilovoltage range (kV).

  • Milliamperage range (mA).

  • Focal spot size in millimetres.

  • Detector type.

  • Greyscale/contrast resolution in bits.

  • FOV size, divided in three categories (small, medium and large) according to Bornstein et al.23 To define the categories, FOV height was multiplied by FOV diameter, representing the FOV surface in cm2. A small FOV was considered when the calculated surface was ≤ 40 cm2; a medium FOV was considered if the surface was > 40 cm2 and ≤ 100 cm2; and a large FOV if it was > 100 cm2.

  • Use of stitching to acquire extended FOV.

  • Voxel size in millimetres.

  • Scan time (i.e. time between first and last projection) in seconds.

  • Reconstruction time in seconds.

  • Beam: pulsed or not pulsed (continuous).

Results

From the 143 CBCT series gathered in the present overview, a total of 279 CBCT models were examined, 203 of which available on the market at the time of writing. They are/were produced by 47 manufacturers from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Thailand, and USA). Republic of Korea had the highest number of CBCT models (n = 72), followed by Japan, Finland, Italy, USA, and France. Brazil, Denmark, and Thailand had a single CBCT series, Eagle 3D, X1, and DentiiScan 2.0 respectively (Figure 1). Vatech (Republic of Korea), which produces 28 models (23 still available on the market) and Planmeca (Finland), which produces 18 models, showed the most variety of CBCT types by individual companies. KaVo, being the owner of different imaging companies (i.e. Gendex, Imaging Science International, Instrumentarium and Soredex) has 32 different CBCT models under its umbrella.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Representative world map highlighting the number of CBCT models produced by each county. CBCT, cone beam CT.

Most of the CBCT models were 2-in-1 models (n = 111), followed by 3-in-1 models (n = 106) while only 62 were CBCT-only models (Figure 2). Two models (RayScan m + SC and DR, Ray Medical Co., Republic of Korea) are 2-in-1 CBCT devices but instead of CBCT and panoramic radiography, they are equipped with CBCT and cephalometric radiography, as they are dedicated to otorhinolaryngology. The machines dimensions vary from 0.8 to 2.5 m in width, 0.8 to 3 m in depth and 1.5 to 2.5 m in height. The main difference in machines size are for 3-in-1 models, which present mean width of 1.9 m. The weight of CBCT devices ranged between 66 and 950 kg and referred only to the devices themselves, without separate workstations (Table 1). In 80% of the CBCT devices, patients are standing while the image is acquired (mostly with wheelchair accessibility), and only 3% of the devices had the patients in supine position (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Graph showing the relative frequency of imaging modalities (CBCT-only, 2-in-1, or 3-in1, respectively) among the CBCT devices. CBCT, cone beam CT.

Table 1.

General features of CBCT devices

Manufacturer Model Availability on the market Imaging modalities Maximum dimensions (width x depth x height) in meters Maximum weight in kilograms Patient position Software
CBCT PANO CEPH
3M IMTEC (USA) ILUMA SFOV No x 2 × 1.1 x 2.2 350 Sitting IlumaVision
ILUMA LFOV No x 2 × 1.1 x 2.2 350 Sitting IlumaVision
3Shape (Denmark) 3Shape X1 Yes x x x 1.3 × 1.6 x 2.3 230 Standing 3D Shape viewer
Acteon (France) X-Mind Trium Yes x x 1.1 × 1.3 x 2.4 185 Standing Acteon Imaging Suite 3D
X-Mind Trium (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.7 × 1.3 x 2.4 215 Standing Acteon Imaging Suite 3D
X-Mind Trium “True low dose” Yes x x x 1.7 × 1.3 x 2.4 215 Standing Acteon Imaging Suite 3D
X-Mind Prime 3D Yes x x 1 × 1.1 x 2.2 67 Standing Acteon Imaging Suite 3D
WhiteFox Yes x 1.6 × 1.9 x 2.5 275 Standing WhiteFox Imaging
Air Techniques (USA) ProVecta 3D Prime Yes x x 1.2 × 1.5 x 2.2 180 Standing VisionX
Asahi Roentgen (Japan) Alphard 2520 No x 2 × 1.7 x 2 480 Sitting Neo 3D
Alphard 3030 VEGA No x 2 × 1.7 x 2 480 Sitting Neo 3D
Alioth No x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.3 280 Standing ADR Plus
Alioth CM No x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.3 314 Standing ADR Plus
Auge Zio No x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.3 298 Standing ADR Plus
Auge Zio CM No x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.3 338 Standing ADR Plus
Auge Zio CM Maxim No x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.3 348 Standing ADR Plus
Auge X Zio No x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.3 298 Standing ADR Plus
Auge X Zio CM No x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.3 338 Standing ADR Plus
Auge X Zio CM Maxim No x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.3 348 Standing ADR Plus
Auge Solio Z Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.3 200 Standing NEOSMART
Auge Solio Z CM Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.3 220 Standing NEOSMART
Solio X Yes x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.3 177 Standing ?
Solio X Z Maxim Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.2 x 2.3 197 Standing ?
PSR 9000N No x ? ? Sitting ?
Biolase (USA) DaVinci Imaging D3D No x 1.5 × 2.4 x 1.7 360 Supine ?
Carestream (France) CS 8100 3D Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 127 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
CS 8100SC 3D Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 127 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
CS 9000 3D / Kodak 9000 3D No x x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2.4 160 Standing ?
CS 9000C 3D / Kodak 9000C 3D No x x x 2.2 × 1.6 x 2.4 199 Standing ?
CS 9300 Yes x x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2.4 160 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
CS 9300C Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.6 x 2.4 199 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
CS 9300 Select Yes x x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2.4 199 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
CS 9300C Select Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.6 x 2.4 199 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
CS 9300 ENT Yes x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2.4 160 Standing Carestream Dental Imaging Software
Kodak 9500 MFOV No x 1.7 × 1.7 x 2.3 176 Standing Kodak Dental Imaging
Kodak 9500 LFOV No x 1.7 × 1.7 x 2.3 176 Standing Kodak Dental Imaging
CS 9600 12 × 10 Yes x x 1.3 × 1.7 x 2.5 210 Standing CS Imaging
CS 9600 16 × 10 Yes x x 1.3 × 1.7 x 2.5 210 Standing CS Imaging
CS 9600 16 × 17 Yes x x 1.3 × 1.7 x 2.5 210 Standing CS Imaging
Castellini (Italy) X Radius Compact 3D No x x 0.9 × 1.1 x 2.3 90 Standing iRYS
X Radius Trio SFOV No x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.5 170 Standing iRYS
X Radius Trio SFOV (Ceph) No x x x 1.8 × 1.5 x 2.5 190 Standing iRYS
X Radius Trio LFOV No x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.5 170 Standing iRYS
X Radius Trio LFOV (Ceph) No x x x 1.8 × 1.5 x 2.5 190 Standing iRYS
Dürr (Germany) VistaVOX S Yes x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.5 180 Standing VistaSoft
VistaVOX S (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.5 × 1.2 x 2.2 202 Standing VistaSoft
Dabi Atlante (Brazil) Eagle 3D Yes x x 1.9 × 1.8 x 2.5 115 Standing OnDemand 3D Dental
Eagle 3D (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.5 × 1.8 x 2.5 152 Standing OnDemand 3D Dental
Dentium (Republic of Korea) Rainbow CT Yes x 1.9 × 1.5 x 2.3 150 Standing DaVinci
Denstply Sirona (Germany) Orthophos S 3D No x x 1.3 × 1.4 x 2.3 110 Standing Sidexis 4
Orthophos S 3D (Ceph) No x x x 2.2 × 1.4 x 2.3 132 Standing Sidexis 4
Orthophos SL 3D Yes x x 1.3 × 1.4 x 2.3 110 Standing Sidexis 4
Orthophos SL 3D (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.2 × 1.4 x 2.3 132 Standing Sidexis 4
Orthophos XG 3D Yes x x 1.3 × 1.4 x 2.3 110 Standing Sidexis 4
Orthophos XG 3D (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.2 × 1.4 x 2.3 132 Standing Sidexis 4
GALILEOS Compact No x 1.6 × 1.6 x 2.3 140 Standing Sidexis 4
GALILEOS Comfort No x 1.6 × 1.6 x 2.3 140 Standing Sidexis 4
GALILEOS Comfort Plus Yes x 1.6 × 1.6 x 2.3 140 Standing Sidexis 4
Fussen (China) Dentrix 20 Yes x x x 1.7 × 1.1 x 2.3 160 Standing Fussen DenView
FONA Dental (Slovakia) Stellaris 3D Yes x x 1.4 × 1.1 x 2.3 109 Standing Stellaris PRO
Stellaris 3D (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.4 × 1.1 x 2.3 137 Standing Stellaris PRO
FONA X PAN 3D Yes x x ? 98 Standing FONA OrisWin
FONA X PAN 3D Plus Yes x x x ? 125 Standing FONA OrisWin
Genoray (Republic of Korea) Volux 6 No x 1.2 × 1.3 x 2 220 Sitting ?
Volux 9 (Dental/ENT) No x 1.5 × 1.4 x 1.9 220 Sitting ?
Volux 21 No x x 0.9 × 1.5 x 2.4 250 Standing TRIANA
Volux 21C No x x x 2.1 × 1.5 x 2.3 300 Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Yes x x 1.2 × 1.1 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Plus Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.1 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Premium NV Yes x x 1.3 × 1.4 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Premium NV (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Premium LV Yes x x 1.3 × 1.4 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Premium LV (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
Papaya 3D Premium ENT Yes x 1.2 × 1.1 x 2.4 ? Standing TRIANA
HDX Will (Republic of Korea) Dentri α Classic Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.5 233 Standing OnDemand 3D
Dentri α Extended Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.5 243 Standing OnDemand 3D
Dentri Cα Classic Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.5 243 Standing OnDemand 3D
Dentri Cα Extended Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.5 260 Standing OnDemand 3D
Dentri Sα Classic Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.5 260 Standing OnDemand 3D
Dentri Sα Extended Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.5 270 Standing OnDemand 3D
Dinnova 3 2520D/3030D Yes x x x 1.5 × 1.7 x 1.9 480 Sitting OnDemand 3D
Q-Face (non-stitch) Yes x x 1.7 × 1.7 x 2.4 285 Standing ?
Q-Face (one stitch) Yes x x 1.7 × 1.7 x 2.4 305 Standing ?
Q-Face (two stitch) Yes x x 1.7 × 1.7 x 2.5 305 Standing ?
Q-Face-S (non-stitch) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.7 x 2.4 310 Standing ?
Q-Face-S (one stitch) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.7 x 2.4 330 Standing ?
Q-Face-S (two stitch) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.7 x 2.5 330 Standing ?
Hitachi (Japan) CB Mercuray No x 1.8 × 1.9 x 2.3 950 Sitting CB Works
CB Throne No x 1.8 × 1.8 x ? ? Sitting CB Works
ImageWork (USA) Panoura 18S Yes x x 1 × 1.1 x 2.3 165 Standing OnDemand 3D
Panoura 18S (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.1 x 2.3 205 Standing OnDemand 3D
J Morita (Japan) 3D Accuitomo No x 1.6 × 1.2 x 2.1 400 Sitting i-Dixel
3D Accuitomo FPD No x 1.6 × 1.2 x 2.1 400 Sitting i-Dixel
3D Accuitomo FPD 80 No x 1.6 × 1.2 x 2.1 400 Sitting i-Dixel
3D Accuitomo 170 Yes x 1.6 × 1.2 x 2.1 400 Sitting i-Dixel
Veraview X800 F40P Yes x x 1.4 × 1.2 x 2.3 185 Standing i-Dixel
Veraview X800 F40CP Yes x x x 2.0 × 1.2 x 2.3 220 Standing i-Dixel
Veraview X800 R100P Yes x x 1.4 × 1.2 x 2.3 185 Standing i-Dixel
Veraview X800 R100CP Yes x x x 2.0 × 1.2 x 2.3 220 Standing i-Dixel
Veraview X800 F150P Yes x x 1.4 × 1.2 x 2.3 185 Standing i-Dixel
Veraview X800 F150CP Yes x x x 2.0 × 1.2 x 2.3 220 Standing i-Dixel
Veraviewepocs 3D F40 No x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.4 190 Standing i-Dixel
Veraviewepocs 3D F40CP No x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.4 260 Standing i-Dixel
Veraviewepocs 3D R100 Yes x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.4 190 Standing i-Dixel
Veraviewpocs 3D R100CP Yes x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.4 260 Standing i-Dixel
KaVo Kerr (USA/Finland) KaVo 3D eXam No x 1.2 × 0.8 x 1.8 ? Sitting DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Yes x x 0.8 × 1.1 x 2.5 120 Standing DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.5 × 1.7 x 2.5 155 Standing DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Pro Small Panel Yes x x 1 × 1.4 x 2.4 200 Standing DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Pro Small Panel (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 250 Standing DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Pro Large Panel Yes x x 1 × 1.4 x 2.4 200 Standing DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Pro Large Panel (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 250 Standing DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Vision (V8) Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Sitting DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Vision (V10) Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Sitting DTX Studio
KaVo OP 3D Vision (V17) Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Sitting DTX Studio
KaVo (Gendex - USA) GXDP-800 No x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 200 Standing ?
GXDP-800 (Ceph) No x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 250 Standing ?
GXDP-700-S Yes x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.5 200 Standing InVivo 5
GXDP-700-SC Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.5 250 Standing InVivo 5
GXCB-500 Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Standing InVivo5
KaVo (Imaging Science International - USA) i-CAT Classic No x 1.1 × 1.3 x 1.8 192 Sitting i-CAT Vision
i-CAT Precise No x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 231 Sitting i-CAT Vision
i-CAT Next Generation No x 1.2 × 0.9 x 1.8 231 Sitting i-CAT Vision
i-CAT FLX MV No x 1.2 × 0.9 x 1.8 230 Sitting i-CAT Vision
i-CAT FLX V8 Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Sitting DTX Studio
i-CAT FLX V10 Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Sitting DTX Studio
i-CAT FLX V17 Yes x 1.2 × 1.3 x 1.8 230 Sitting DTX Studio
KaVo (Instrumentarium – Finland) OP200 D No x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.3 175 Standing ?
OC 200 D No x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.3 210 Standing ?
OP300 Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.5 250 Standing OnDemand 3D
OP300 Maxio Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.5 250 Standing OnDemand 3D
KaVo (Soredex – Finland) SCANORA 3D No x x 1.6 × 1.4 x 2 310 Sitting OnDemand 3D
SCANORA 3DX No x x 1.6 × 1.4 x 2 310 Sitting OnDemand 3D
CRANEX 3D No x x 1 × 1.4 x 2.4 200 Standing OnDemand 3D
CRANEX 3D (Ceph) No x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 250 Standing OnDemand 3D
CRANEX 3DX No x x 1 × 1.4 x 2.4 200 Standing OnDemand 3D
CRANEX 3DX (Ceph) No x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 250 Standing OnDemand 3D
LargeV (China) HiRes 3D Dental Yes x 1.1 × 1.6 x 2.1 340 Sitting SmartV
HiRes 3D MAX Yes x 1.1 × 1.6 x 2.1 340 Sitting SmartV
Smart Dental Yes x x 1.1 × 1.5 x 2.4 285 Standing SmartV
Smart Dental (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.5 x 2.4 335 Standing SmartV
MyRay (Italy) SkyView No x 1.5 × 2.5 x 1.8 360 Supine SkyView
Hyperion X5 3D/2D Yes x x 0.9 × 1.1 x 2.3 90 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X5 3D/2D CEPH Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.1 x 2.3 115 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Full FOV Yes x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.5 170 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Full FOV CEPH Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.5 x 2.5 190 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Extended FOV Yes x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.5 170 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Extended FOV CEPH Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.5 x 2.5 190 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Pro 10 × 8 version Yes x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.5 155 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Pro CEPH 10 × 8 version Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.5 x 2.5 175 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Pro 13 × 16 version Yes x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.5 155 Standing iRYS
Hyperion X9 Pro CEPH 13 × 16 version Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.5 x 2.5 175 Standing iRYS
Meyer (China) SS-91010D Pro-3D Yes x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.5 ? Standing DCTViewer
SS-91010D Pro-3De Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.5 ? Standing DCTViewer
X12008D Pro-3D Yes x 1.5 × 1.7 x 2 350 Sitting DCTViewer
PiXAMED (Thailand) DentiiScan 2.0 Yes x 1 × 1.3 x 2.4 190 Standing In house software
Owandy (France) I-MAX 3D Yes x x 1 × 1.1 x 2.2 66 Standing QuickVision
I-MAX 3D Touch Yes x x 1.2 × 1.3 x 2.5 161 Standing QuickVision
I-MAX 3D Touch CEPH Yes x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.5 186 Standing QuickVision
Osstem (Republic of Korea) Osstem Implant CBCT T1 Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.2 x 2.3 210 Standing Oneclinic
Planmeca (Finland) ProMax 3D Classic Yes x x 1.2 × 1.3 x 2.4 113 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Classic (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.4 128 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D S Yes x x 1.2 × 1.3 x 2.4 113 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D S (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.4 128 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Plus Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 131 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Plus (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 146 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Plus ENT Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 131 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Plus ENT (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 146 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Mid Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 131 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Mid (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 146 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Mid ENT Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 131 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Mid ENT (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 146 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Max Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 131 Standing Romexis
ProMax 3D Max ENT Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 131 Standing Romexis
Viso Yes x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.3 165 Standing Romexis
Viso (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.5 x 2.4 180 Standing Romexis
Viso (Vertical stitching) Yes x x 1.3 × 1.5 x 2.3 165 Standing Romexis
Viso (Vertical stitching) (Ceph) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.5 x 2.4 180 Standing Romexis
Pointnix (Republic of Korea) Point I3D Yes x 1.2 × 1.1 x 1.8 Sitting RealScan
Point 3D Combi 500 Yes x x 1.1 × 1.3 x 2.3 150 Standing Romexis
Point 3D Combi 500c Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.3 x 2.3 190 Standing Romexis
Point 3D Combi 500 s Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.3 x 2.3 185 Standing Romexis
Point 800 HD Plus Yes x x 1.1 × 1.3 x 2.3 150 Standing Romexis
Point 800c HD Plus Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.3 x 2.3 190 Standing Romexis
Point 800 s HD Plus Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.3 x 2.3 185 Standing Romexis
PreXion (Japan) PreXion 3D No x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2 400 Sitting Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Elite Yes x x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2 390 Sitting Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Elite Element Yes x x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2 390 Sitting Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Eclipse Yes x x 1.2 × 1.3 x 2 260 Sitting Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Eclipse (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.3 x 2 300 Sitting Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Excelsior Ex Yes x x 1 × 1.2 x 2.2 165 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Excelsior Ex (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.2 x 2.2 200 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Excelsior Plus Yes x x 1 × 1.2 x 2.2 165 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Excelsior Plus (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.2 x 2.2 200 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Excelsior Pro Yes x x 1 × 1.2 x 2.2 165 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Excelsior Pro (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.2 x 2.2 200 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
PreXion 3D Explorer Yes x x x 1.1 × 1.6 x 2.3 185 Standing Prexion3D Viewer
Quantitative Radiology / Cefla Dental Group (Italy) GiANO HR Prime Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.5 155 Standing NNT
GiANO HR Prime (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.2 x 2.5 175 Standing NNT
GiANO HR Advanced Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.5 155 Standing NNT
GiANO HR Advanced (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.2 x 2.5 175 Standing NNT
GiANO HR Professional Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.5 155 Standing NNT
GiANO HR Professional (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.8 × 1.2 x 2.5 175 Standing NNT
GiANO/NewTom VG3 Yes x x 1.4 × 1.4 x 2.4 170 Standing NNT
GiANO/NewTom VG3 (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.4 190 Standing NNT
Go 2D/3D Imaging Yes x x 0.9 × 1.1 x 2.3 90 Standing NNT
NewTom 9000 Maxiscan No x 2.5 × 3 x 2.4 320 Supine
NewTom VG No x 1.1 × 1.5 x 2.3 272 Standing NNT
NewTom VG Flex No x 1.2 × 1.5 x 2 272 Sitting NNT
NewTom VGi No x 1.2 × 1.5 x 2.3 272 Standing NNT
NewTom VGi Flex No x 1.2 × 1.5 x 2 272 Standing NNT
NewTom VGi evo Yes x x x 1.3 × 1.6 x 2.3 337 Standing NNT
NewTom 3G No x 2 × 2.5 x 2 480 Supine NewTom 3G Expert
NewTom 5G No x 1.8 × 2.3 x 1.8 530 Supine NNT
NewTom 5G XL Yes x 1.8 × 3.6 x 1.8 660 Supine NNT
Ritter Imaging (Germany) Orion No x ? ? Sitting ?
Ray Medical (Republic of Korea) RAYSCAN Symphony BC No x 1.2 × 1.6 x 2 355 Sitting ?
RAYSCAN Symphony V No x 1.4 × 1.7 x 2 355 Sitting ?
RAYSCAN α−3D Yes x x 1.5 × 1.7 x 2.3 150 Standing ?
RAYSCAN α−3D (SC, OCS, OCL) Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.7 x 2.3 177.5 Standing ?
RAYSCAN α + 130 Yes x x 1.5 × 1.5 x 2.3 148 Standing ?
RAYSCAN α + 130 (SC, OCS, OCL) Yes x x x 2 × 1.5 x 2.3 164 Standing ?
RAYSCAN α + 160 Yes x x 1.5 × 1.5 x 2.3 148 Standing ?
RAYSCAN α + 160 (SC, OCS, OCL) Yes x x x 2 × 1.5 x 2.3 164 Standing ?
RAYSCAN m+ Yes x 1.5 × 1.5 x 2.3 ? Standing ?
RAYSCAN m + SC Yes x x 1.9 × 1.5 x 2.3 ? Standing ?
RAYSCAN m + DR (with chest X-ray) Yes x x 1.9 × 1.5 x 2.3 ? Standing ?
Ray Medical (Republic of Korea) / Apteryx (USA) RAYSCAN α-Edge Yes x x 1.5 × 1.7 x 2.3 150 Standing ?
RAYSCAN α-SM Edge Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.7 x 2.3 177.5 Standing ?
Streamhealth Dental (USA) Trophypan Smart 3D Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 92 Standing ?
Suni Medical Imaging (USA) Suni3D No x x 1 × 1.2 x 2.3 ? Standing ?
Suni3D (Ceph) No x x x 1.9 × 1.2 x 2.3 ? Standing ?
Suni Q3D No x x 1.2 × 1.2 x 2.4 145 Standing Q3D
Suni Q3D (Ceph) No x x x 1.9 × 1.2 x 2.4 160 Standing Q3D
Trident (Italy) X-View Cone Beam Yes x x 0.9 × 1.1 x 2.2 95 Standing Deep View/Xelis
X-View Cone Beam (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.7 × 1.1 x 2.2 125 Standing Deep View/Xelis
Vatech (Republic of Korea) PaX-i3D Yes x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 120 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D (SC or OP) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.4 150 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D Smart / i3D Smart 8 × 8 Yes x x 1.3 × 1.4 x 2.4 137 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D Smart (Ceph)/ i3D Smart 8 × 8 SC Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.4 162 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D Smart 2/Green Smart / Smart Plus / i3D Smart Yes x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 137 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D Smart 2 (Ceph) / Green Smart SC / Smart Plus RC / i3D Smart RC Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.4 162 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D Green / Green CT Yes x x 1.2 × 1.4 x 2.4 137 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3DGreen SC or OP / Green CT SC or OP Yes x x x 2 × 1.4 x 2.4 162 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D 2/Green CT 2/Green 16 Yes x x 1.1 × 1.5 x 2.4 187 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-i3D 2 (Ceph) / Green CT 2 (Ceph) / Green 16 (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.5 x 2.4 212 Standing Ez3D plus
Green 18 Yes x x 1.1 × 1.5 x 2.4 187 Standing Ez3D plus
Green 18 (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.5 x 2.4 212 Standing Ez3D plus
Green 21/i3D Premium (AutoCeph) Yes x x 1.5 × 1.6 x 2.2 321 Sitting Ez3D plus
PaX-Flex3D P Yes x x 1 × 1.5 x 2.3 185 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-Flex3D PC Yes x x x 2 × 1.5 x 2.3 225 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-Uni3D P Yes x x 1 × 1.5 x 2.3 185 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-Uni3D PC Yes x x x 2 × 1.5 x 2.3 225 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-Duo3D Yes x x 1.1 × 1.6 x 2.3 220 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-Zenith3D Yes x x 1.8 × 2 x 1.9 493 Sitting Ez3D plus
PaX-Reve3D Yes x x 1.4 × 1.6 x 2.3 210 Standing Ez3D plus
PaX-Reve3D OS Yes x x x 2.1 × 1.6 x 2.3 250 Standing Ez3D plus
Picasso Trio Yes x x 1 × 1.5 x 2.3 185 Standing Ez3D plus
Picasso Trio (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.5 x 2.3 225 Standing Ez3D plus
Picasso Duo No x x 0.9 × 1.5 x 2.4 ? Standing Ez3D
Picasso Master 3D No x 1.5 × 1.9 x 2.3 ? Sitting Ex3D
Picasso Pro 3D No x 1.4 × 1.6 x 1.8 ? Sitting Ez3D
PaX 500 ECT No x x 1 × 1.3 x 2.3 ? Standing ECT Viewer
PaX 500 ECT (Ceph) No x x x 1.9 × 1.3 x 2.3 ? Standing ECT Viewer
Villa Sistemi Medicalli (Italy) Rotograph Evo 3D Yes x x 1.1 × 1.3 x 2.5 191 Standing Dental Studio
Rotograph Evo 3D (Ceph) Yes x x x 2 × 1.3 x 2.5 216 Standing Dental Studio
Rotograph Prime 3D Yes x x 1 × 1.1 x 2.2 67 Standing Quick Vision / Villa 3D
UEG Medical (China) Spectral Yes x 1.2 × 0.8 x 2 320 Sitting UEG RealView
Xoran Technologies (USA) Minicat No x 0.9 × 1 x 1.7 204 Sitting Minicat Viewing Solutions
Minicat IQ (ENT) Yes x 0.9 × 1 x 1.7 204 Sitting Minicat Viewing Solutions
Minicat 2020 Yes x ? ? Sitting ?
XCat (Portable) Yes x 0.8 × 1.2 x 1.5 235 Supine ?
Yoshida (Japan) Finecube No x 1.9 × 1.2 x 1.6 390 Sitting PreXion 3D Viewer
X-era Smart F+ Yes x x 0.9 × 1.1 x 2.2 170 Standing ?
X-era Smart F+ (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.1 x 2.2 210 Standing ?
Yoshida (Japan) / ImageWorks (USA) X-era NF / Panoura X-era NF Yes x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.4 ? Standing OneSystem
X-era NF (Ceph) / Panoura X-era NF (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.3 ? Standing OneSystem
X-era MF / Panoura X-era MF Yes x x 1.1 × 1.4 x 2.3 ? Standing OneSystem
X-era MF (Ceph) / X-era MF (Ceph) Yes x x x 1.9 × 1.4 x 2.3 ? Standing OneSystem
Open in a new tab

CBCT: cone-beam computed tomography; PANO: panoramic radiography; CEPH: cephalometric radiography.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Representative scheme of patient positioning (standing, sitting, and supine) for scan among the CBCT devices. CBCT, cone beam CT.

Regarding exposure parameters, kV and mA values were observed as constant or adjustable; most of the devices had adjustable kV and mA options (Table 2). Machines that used the lowest kV in the found range (as low as 40 kV) are not available on the market anymore. Few devices have fixed kV, while the overall kV range for devices currently on the market is from 50 to 120. It is crucial to note that these kV range do not always specifically refer to the actual selectable range in ‘CBCT mode’; in many cases, especially for 2-in-1 and 3-in-1 units, the low end of the kV range may only apply to the panoramic, cephalometric and/or service mode. Also, for tube current, a vast diversity of ranges is encountered among the CBCT devices, with the overall range being from 1 to 32 mA, which is the case of NewTom VGi EVO (Quantitative Radiology/Cefla Dental Group, Italy). CBCT devices operate with 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 mm focal spot size, with the majority being 0.5 mm. NewTom 9000 Maxiscan (the first commercial CBCT machine for dental application) had a focal spot of 1.2 × 0.8 mm.

Table 2.

Cone beam computed tomography machines acquisition parameters

Manufacturer Model kV mA Focal Spot (mm) Detector Typea Detector Gray Scale (bits) FOVb FOV Stitching Voxel Size (min-max) (mm) Scan Time (s)c Reconstruction Time (s) Pulsed Beam
Small Medium Large
3M IMTEC (USA) ILUMA SFOV 120 1–3.8 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 16 x No 0.09–0.4 7.8–40 >120 No
ILUMA LFOV 120 1–3.8 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 16 x No 0.09–0.4 7.8–40 >120 No
3Shape (Denmark) X1 60–90 4–12 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.1–0.4 12–14 300 Yes
Acteon (France) X-Mind Trium 80–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x No 0.075–0.15 12–30 29 Yes
X-Mind Trium (Ceph) 80–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x No 0.075–0.15 12–30 29 Yes
X-Mind Trium “True low dose” 80–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x No 0.075 12–30 29 Yes
X-Mind Prime 3D 60–86 2–12.5 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.08 7 ? ?
WhiteFox 105 6–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.1–0.3 18–27 30 Yes
Air Techniques (USA) ProVecta 3D Prime 50–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS - CsI) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.2 2–18 ? Yes
Asahi Roentgen (Japan) Alphard 2520 60–110 2–15 0.6 FPD ? x x No 0.1–0.39 ? ? ?
Alphard 3030 VEGA 60–110 2–15 0.6 FPD ? x x No 0.1–0.39 ? ? ?
Alioth 60–100 1–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 8–14 x x No 0.1–0.2 17 ? No
Alioth CM 60–100 1–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 8–14 x x No 0.1–0.2 17 ? No
Auge Zio 60–95 2–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 12 x x No 0.1–0.2 8.5–17 ? No
Auge Zio CM 60–95 2–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 12 x x No 0.1–0.2 8.5–17 ? No
Auge Zio CM Maxim 60–95 2–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 12 x x No 0.1–0.2 8.5–17 ? No
Auge X Zio 60–95 2–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 12 x x No 0.1–0.2 8.5–17 ? No
Auge X Zio CM 60–95 2–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 12 x x No 0.1–0.2 8.5–17 ? No
Auge X Zio CM Maxim 60–95 2–12 0.5 FPD (CsI) 12 x x No 0.1–0.2 8.5–17 ? No
Auge Solio Z 60–100 2–12 0.6 ? 12 x x x No 0.1–0.3 ? ? ?
Auge Solio Z CM 60–100 2–12 0.6 ? 12 x x x No 0.1–0.3 ? ? ?
Solio X 60–85 2–8 0.5 ? ? x x No 0.1–0.17 6–12 ? ?
Solio X Z Maxim 60–85 2–8 0.5 ? ? x x No 0.1–0.17 6–12 ? ?
PSR 9000N ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0.1–0.15 17 ? ?
Biolase (USA) DaVinci Imaging D3D 90 10 0.5–0.6 II (CCD) 12 x x No 0.17–0.33 10–30 30–70 Yes
Carestream (France) CS 8100 3D 60–90 2–15 0.6–0.7 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.075-? 7–15 >120 Yes
CS 8100SC 3D 60–90 2–15 0.6–0.7 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.075-? 7–15 >120 Yes
CS 9000 3D / Kodak 9000 3D 60–90 2–15 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.076-? 22 >120 Yes
CS 9000C 3D / Kodak 9000C 3D 60–90 2–15 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.076-? 22 >120 Yes
CS 9300 60–90 2–15 0.7 TFT 14 x x x No 0.09–0.5 12–28 >120 Yes/No
CS 9300C 60–90 2–15 0.7 TFT 14 x x x No 0.09–0.5 12–28 >120 Yes/No
CS 9300 Select 60–90 2–15 0.7 TFT 14 x x No 0.09–0.5 12–28 >120 Yes/No
CS 9300C Select 60–90 2–15 0.7 TFT 14 x x No 0.09–0.5 12–28 >120 Yes/No
CS 9300 ENT 60–90 2–15 0.7 TFT 14 x x x No 0.09–0.5 12–28 >120 Yes/No
Kodak 9500 MFOV 60–90 2–15 0.7 FPD (A-Si) 14 x No 0.2–0.3 24 80–150 Yes
Kodak 9500 LFOV 60–90 2–15 0.7 FPD (A-Si) 14 x No 0.2–0.3 24 80–150 Yes
CS 9600 12 × 10 60–120 2–15 0.3–0.7 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.075–0.4 5.5–40 ? Yes
CS 9600 16 × 10 60–120 2–15 0.3–0.7 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.075–0.4 5.5–40 ? Yes
CS 9600 16 × 17 60–120 2–15 0.3–0.7 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.075–0.4 5.5–40 ? Yes
Castellini (Italy) X Radius Compact 3D 90 4–15 0.6 FPD (A-Si - CsI) 16 x x No 0.08–0.16 ? ? Yes
X Radius Trio SFOV 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si - CsI) 16 x x x Yes 0.075-? >18 >15 Yes
X Radius Trio SFOV (Ceph) 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si - CsI) 16 x x x Yes 0.075-? >18 >15 Yes
X Radius Trio LFOV 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si - CsI) 16 x x x Yes 0.075-? >18 >15 Yes
X Radius Trio LFOV (Ceph) 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si - CsI) 16 x x x Yes 0.075-? >18 >15 Yes
Dürr (Germany) VistaVOX S 50–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS - CsI) ? x x x No 0.08–0.12 2–18 ? ?
VistaVOX S (Ceph) 50–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS - CsI) ? x x x No 0.08–0.12 2–18 ? ?
Dabi Atlante (Brazil) Eagle 3D 85 4–8 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.08–0.5 7–32 22–97 Yes
Eagle 3D (Ceph) 85 4–8 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.08–0.5 7–32 22–97 Yes
Dentium (Republic of Korea) Rainbow CT 60–100 4–12 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x Yes 0.2–0.3 19 >60 ?
Denstply Sirona (Germany) Orthophos S 3D 60–90 4–13 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x x No 0.08–0.22 14 ? Yes
Orthophos S 3D (Ceph) 60–90 4–13 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x x No 0.08–0.22 14 ? Yes
Orthophos SL 3D 60–90 4–13 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x x No 0.08–0.22 14 ? Yes
Orthophos SL 3D (Ceph) 60–90 4–13 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x x No 0.08–0.22 14 ? Yes
Orthophos XG 3D 60–90 4–13 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x No 0.1–0.16 14 ? Yes
Orthophos XG 3D (Ceph) 60–90 4–13 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x No 0.1–0.16 14 90–390 Yes
Galileos Compact 85 5–7 0.5 II 12 x No 0.3 14 240–300 Yes
Galileos Comfort 85 5–7 0.5 II 12 x No 0.15–0.3 14 240–300 Yes
Galileos Comfort Plus 98 3–6 0.5 II 12 x No 0.125–0.25 14 ? ?
Fussen (China) Dentrix 20 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.075–0.25 15 >60 Yes
FONA Dental (Slovakia) Stellaris 3D 60–86 2.5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.08-? 13–16.9 ? Yes
Stellaris 3D (Ceph) 60–86 2.5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.08-? 13–16.9 ? Yes
FONA X PAN 3D 61–85 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.16 12.3 >10 Yes
FONA X PAN 3D Plus 61–85 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.16 12.3 >10 Yes
Genoray (Republic of Korea) Volux 6 60–85 5–7 0.5 ? ? x x No 0.1–0.17 20 180 ?
Volux 9 (Dental/ENT) 85 7 0.5 ? ? x No ? 8.5 120 ?
Volux 21 60–110 5–7 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x No 0.1–0.28 15.8 150 ?
Volux 21C 60–110 5–7 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x No 0.1–0.28 15.8 150 ?
Papaya 3D 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 7.7–14.5 ? ?
Papaya 3D Plus 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 7.7–14.5 ? ?
Papaya 3D Premium NV 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x Yes 0.075–0.4 >7.7 ? ?
Papaya 3D Premium NV (Ceph) 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x Yes 0.075–0.4 >7.7 ? ?
Papaya 3D Premium LV 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x Yes 0.075–0.4 >7.7 ? ?
Papaya 3D Premium LV (Ceph) 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x Yes 0.075–0.4 >7.7 ? ?
Papaya 3D Premium ENT 60–90 4–12 0.5 ? ? x Yes 0.075–0.4 >7.7 ? ?
HDX Will (Republic of Korea) Dentri α Classic 60–110 5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.1–0.3 16–36 8–40 Yes
Dentri α Extended 60–110 5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 8–40 Yes
Dentri Cα Classic 60–110 5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.1–0.3 16–36 8–40 Yes
Dentri Cα Extended 60–110 5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 8–40 Yes
Dentri Sα Classic 60–110 5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.1–0.3 16–36 8–40 Yes
Dentri Sα Extended 60–110 5–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 8–40 Yes
Dinnova 3 2520D/3030D 50–120 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.15–0.4 7–24 >120 Yes
Q-Face (non-stitch) 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.1–0.3 8–24 >60 Yes
Q-Face (one stitch) 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 >60 Yes
Q-Face (two stitch) 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 >60 Yes
Q-Face-S (non-stitch) 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.1–0.3 8–24 >60 Yes
Q-Face-S (one stitch) 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 >60 Yes
Q-Face-S (two stitch) 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x Yes 0.1–0.3 8–24 >60 Yes
Hitachi (Japan) CB Mercuray 60–120 10–15 ? II (CCD) 12 x x No 0.1–0.37 9.6 360 ?
CB Throne 60–120 10–15 ? II (CCD) 12 x x No 0.1*2–0.2*4 9.6 ? ?
ImageWork (USA) Panoura 18S 58–82 2–10 0.5 ? 16 x x No 0.08–0.1 11.5–23 ? ?
Panoura 18S (Ceph) 58–82 2–10 0.5 ? 16 x x No 0.08–0.1 11.5–23 ? ?
J Morita (Japan) 3D Accuitomo XYZ 60–80 1–10 0.5 II (CCD) ? x No 0.125 18 >300 No
3D Accuitomo FPD 60 60–80 1–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 13 x No 0.08–0.125 >18 >180 No
3D Accuitomo FPD 80 60–80 1–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 13 x x No 0.08–0.16 >18 >180 No
3D Accuitomo 170 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.25 5.4–30.8 >180 No
Veraview X800 F40P 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD ? x x No 0.08–0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraview X800 F40PC 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD ? x x No 0.08–0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraview X800 R100P 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD ? x x No 0.08–0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraview X800 R100PC 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD ? x x No 0.08–0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraview X800 F150P 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD ? x x x No 0.08–0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraview X800 F150PC 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD ? x x x No 0.08–0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraviewpocs 3D F40 60–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 13 x x No 0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraviewpocs 3D F40PC 60–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 13 x x No 0.125 9.4 <60 No
Veraviewpocs 3D R100 60–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 13 x x No 0.125–0.16 9.4 <60 No
Veraviewpocs 3D R100PC 60–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 13 x x No 0.125–0.16 9.4 <60 No
KaVo Kerr (USA/Finland) KaVo 3D eXam 120 3–7 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x No 0.2–0.4 9–27 >120 Yes
KaVo OP 3D 95 2–12.5 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.08–0.4 10–20 ? ?
KaVo OP 3D (Ceph) 95 2–12.5 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.08–0.4 10–20 ? ?
KaVo OP 3D Pro Small Panel 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x No 0.085–0.3 11–21 ? ?
KaVo OP 3D Pro Small Panel (Ceph) 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x No 0.085–0.3 11–21 ? ?
KaVo OP 3D Pro Large Panel 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.085–0.4 11–42 ? ?
KaVo OP 3D Pro Large Panel (Ceph) 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.085–0.4 11–42 ? ?
KaVo 3D Vision (V8) 90–120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–26.9 >30 Yes
KaVo 3D Vision (V10) 90–120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–26.9 >30 Yes
KaVo 3D Vision (V17) 90–120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–26.9 >30 Yes
KaVo (Gendex - USA) GXDP-800 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x x No 0.085–0.4 10–20 ? Yes
GXDP-800 (Ceph) 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x x No 0.085–0.4 10–20 ? Yes
GXDP-700-S 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.085–0.3 11–17 ? Yes
GXDP-700-SC 57–90 3.2–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.085–0.3 11–17 ? Yes
GXCB-500 90–120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.125–0.4 8.9–23 20–95 Yes
KaVo (Imaging Science - USA) i-CAT Classic 120 3–7 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x No 0.2–0.4 10–40 >120 ?
i-CAT Precise 120 3–7 0.5 FPD (A-Si - CsI) 14 x x x No 0.125–0.4 4–23 >95 ?
i-CAT Next Generation 120 3–7 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.125–0.4 5–27 >60 Yes
i-CAT FLX MV 120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–23 >30 Yes
i-CAT FLX V8 120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–26.9 >30 Yes
i-CAT FLX V10 120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–26.9 >30 Yes
i-CAT FLX V17 120 3–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.125–0.4 4.8–26.9 >30 Yes
KaVo (Instrumentarium – Finland) OP200 D 57–85 2–16 0.5 ? ? x No 0.23 ? ? ?
OC 200 D 57–85 2–16 0.5 ? ? x No 0.23 ? ? ?
OP300 57–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.085–0.3 11–21 >120 Yes
OP300 Maxio 57–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x Yes 0.085–0.3 11–40 >120 Yes
KaVo (Soredex – Finland) Scanora 3D 60–90 8–15 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x x No 0.133–0.35 10–26 60–360 Yes
Scanora 3DX 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x x No 0.1–0.5 18–34 ? Yes
Cranex 3D 57–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.085–0.3 10–20 ? Yes
Cranex 3D (Ceph) 57–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.085–0.3 10–20 ? Yes
Cranex 3DX 57–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x x Yes 0.085–0.4 10–40 ? Yes
Cranex 3DX (Ceph) 57–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x x Yes 0.085–0.4 10–40 ? Yes
LargeV (China) HiRes 3D Dental 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.25 15–21 >30 Yes
HiRes 3D MAX 60–100 2–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x Yes 0.075–0.3 15 >40 Yes
Smart Dental 60–100 2–10 0.4 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.05–0.25 13 20–40 ?
Smart Dental (Ceph) 60–100 2–10 0.4 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.05–0.25 13 20–40 ?
MyRay (Italy) SkyView 90 10 (max) 0.5–0.6 II 12 x x No 0.17–0.33 10–30 30–70 Yes
Hyperion X5 3D/2D 90 4–15 0.6 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.08–0.16 6.4–16.8 >15 Yes
Hyperion X5 3D/2D CEPH 90 4–15 0.6 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.08–0.16 6.4–16.8 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Full FOV 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Full FOV CEPH 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Extended FOV 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x Yes 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Extended FOV CEPH 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x Yes 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Pro 10 × 8 version 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Pro CEPH 10 × 8 version 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Pro 13 × 16 version 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Hyperion X9 Pro CEPH 13 × 16 version 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Meyer (China) SS-91010D Pro-3D 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? ? ? ? ? ? 11.7–20 ? ?
SS-91010D Pro-3De 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? ? ? ? ? ? 11.7–20 ? ?
X12008D Pro-3D 60–120 2–8 ? ? ? x ? 0.24 20 60 ?
PiXAMED (Thailand) DentiiScan 2.0 90 6–9 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.2–0.4 18 8–18 Yes
Owandy (France) I-MAX 3D 60–86 2–12.5 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.087–0.175 10.8–11.2 ? ?
I-MAX 3D Touch 60–86 6–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x No 0.092 20 >90 Yes
I-MAX 3D Touch CEPH 60–86 6–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) ? x x No 0.092 20 >90 Yes
Osstem (Republic of Korea) Osstem Implant CBCT T1 60–100 5–16 0.5 FPD ? x x No 0.2 14–22 40 ?
Planmeca (Finland) Promax 3D Classic 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 9–37 2–25 Yes
Promax 3D Classic (Ceph) 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 9–37 2–25 Yes
Promax 3D S 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x Yes 0.075–0.4 7.5–27 2–25 Yes
Promax 3D S (Ceph) 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x Yes 0.075–0.4 7.5–27 2–25 Yes
Promax 3D Plus 60–120 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x No 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–30 Yes
Promax 3D Plus (Ceph) 60–120 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x No 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–30 Yes
Promax 3D Plus ENT 60–120 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x No 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–30 Yes
Promax 3D Plus ENT (Ceph) 60–120 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x No 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–30 Yes
Promax 3D Mid 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–55 Yes
Promax 3D Mid (Ceph) 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–55 Yes
Promax 3D Mid ENT 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–55 Yes
Promax 3D Mid ENT (Ceph) 54–90 1–14 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 9–33 2–55 Yes
Promax 3D Max 54–96 1–12.5 0.5–0.6 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 9–55 2–55 Yes
Promax 3D Max ENT 54–96 1–12.5 0.5–0.6 FPD (CMOS) 15 x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 9–55 2–55 Yes
Viso 80–120 1–16 0.5 FPD ? x x x No 0.075–0.6 1–36 2–55 Yes
Viso (Ceph) 80–120 1–16 0.5 FPD ? x x x No 0.075–0.6 1–36 2–55 Yes
Viso (Vertical stitching) 80–120 1–16 0.5 FPD ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 1–36 2–55 Yes
Viso (Vertical stitching) (Ceph) 80–120 1–16 0.5 FPD ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.6 1–36 2–55 Yes
Pointnix (Republic of Korea) Point I3D 50–90 4–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.23–0.47 19 19–24 ?
Point 3D Combi 500 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.18–0.43 19 10–40 Yes
Point 3D Combi 500c 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.18–0.43 19 10–40 Yes
Point 3D Combi 500 s 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS - CsI) 14 x x No 0.18–0.43 19 10–40 Yes
Point 800 HD Plus 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.18–0.43 19 10–40 ?
Point 800c HD Plus 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.18–0.43 19 10–40 ?
Point 800 s HD Plus 50–90 4–10 0.5 ? 14 x x No 0.18–0.43 19 10–40 ?
PreXion (Japan) PreXion 3D 90 4 0.15 FPD (CsI) 16 x No 0.1–0.15 19–37 >60 No
PreXion 3D Elite 90 4 0.2 FPD (CsI) 14 x x No 0.1–0.16 8.6–33.5 30 No
PreXion 3D Elite Element 90 4 0.2 FPD (CsI) 14 x No 0.1–0.16 8.6–33.5 30 No
PreXion 3D Eclipse 90 4 0.2 FPD (CsI) 14 x No 0.15 8.7–17.4 >30 No
PreXion 3D Eclipse (Ceph) 90 4 0.2 FPD (CsI) 14 x No 0.15 8.7–17.4 >30 No
PreXion 3D Excelsior Ex 60–110 1–6 0.3 FPD (CsI) 16 x x No 0.08–0.2 5.2–23 ? No
PreXion 3D Excelsior Ex (Ceph) 60–110 1–6 0.3 FPD (CsI) 16 x x No 0.08–0.2 5.2–23 ? No
PreXion 3D Excelsior Plus 60–110 1–6 0.3 FPD (CsI) 16 x x No 0.08–0.2 5.2–23 ? No
PreXion 3D Excelsior Plus (Ceph) 60–110 1–6 0.3 FPD (CsI) 16 x x No 0.08–0.2 5.2–23 ? No
PreXion 3D Excelsior Pro 60–110 1–6 0.3 FPD (CsI) 16 x x x No 0.08–0.2 5.2–23 ? No
PreXion 3D Excelsior Pro (Ceph) 60–110 1–6 0.3 FPD (CsI) 16 x x x No 0.08–0.2 5.2–23 ? No
PreXion 3D Explorer 90–110 1–5 0.3 FPD (A-Si TFT) 16 x x x No 0.074–0.3 10–20 60 Yes
Quantitative Radiology / Cefla Dental Group (Italy) Giano HR Prime 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075–0.3 3.6–26.4 >15 Yes
Giano HR Prime (Ceph) 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075–0.3 3.6–26.4 >15 Yes
Giano HR Advanced 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.068–0.3 6.4–33.6 >60 Yes
Giano HR Advanced (Ceph) 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.068–0.3 6.4–33.6 >60 Yes
Giano HR Professional 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.068–0.3 6.4–33.6 >60 Yes
Giano HR Professional (Ceph) 90 2–16 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.068–0.3 6.4–33.6 >60 Yes
Giano/NewTom VG3 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Giano/NewTom VG3 (Ceph) 60–90 1–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.075-? 18 >15 Yes
Go 2D/3D Imaging 90 4–15 0.6 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x No 0.08-? 6.4–16.8 >15 Yes
NewTom 9000 Maxiscan 110 1–15 1.2 × 0.8 ? ? x No 0.3–1.2 70 ? Yes
NewTom VG 110 1–20 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 14 x No 0.3 24 180 Yes
NewTom VG Flex 110 1–20 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 14 No 0.3 24 180 Yes
NewTom VGi 110 1–20 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.075–0.3 18–26 60 Yes
NewTom VGi Flex 110 1–20 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x x No 0.075–0.3 18–26 60 Yes
NewTom VGi evo 75–110 1–32 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.1–0.3 15–25 60 Yes
NewTom 3G 110 15 0.5 II (CCD) 12 x x No 0.3 36 300 Yes
NewTom 5G 110 1–20 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.075–0.3 18–36 300 Yes
NewTom 5G XL 110 1–20 0.3 FPD (A-Si) 16 x x x No 0.075–0.3 18–36 300 Yes
Ritter Imaging (Germany) Orion ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0.1–0.167 ? ? ?
Ray Medical (Republic of Korea) RAYSCAN Symphony BC 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD 16 x No 0.14 20–40 ? ?
RAYSCAN Symphony V 60–90 4–10 0.5 FPD 16 x No 0.19–0.38 20–40 ? ?
RAYSCAN α−3D 60–90 4–17 0.5 TFT ? x No 0.16–0.3 4.9–14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN α−3D (SC, OCS, OCL) 60–90 4–17 0.5 TFT ? x No 0.16–0.3 4.9–14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN α + 130 60–90 4–17 0.5 TFT ? x x x No 0.07–0.3 4.9–14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN α + 130 (SC, OCS, OCL) 60–90 4–17 0.5 TFT ? x x x No 0.07–0.3 4.9–14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN α + 160 60–90 4–17 0.5 TFT ? x x x No 0.07–0.3 4.9–14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN α + 160 (SC, OCS, OCL) 60–90 4–17 0.5 TFT ? x x x No 0.07–0.3 4.9–14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN m+ 60–90 4–17 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.18–0.4 ? ? Yes
RAYSCAN m + SC 60–90 4–17 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.18–0.4 ? ? Yes
RAYSCAN m + DR (with chest X-ray) 60–90 4–17 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.18–0.4 ? ? Yes
Ray Medical (Republic of Korea) / Apteryx (USA) RAYSCAN α-Edge 60–90 4–17 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x No 0.14–0.29 14 ? Yes
RAYSCAN α-SM Edge 60–90 4–17 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x No 0.14–0.29 14 ? Yes
Streamhealth Dental (USA) Trophypan Smart 3D 60–90 2–15 0.7 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.075–0.4 7–15 ? ?
Suni Medical Imaging (USA) Suni3D 40–99 2–10 0.5 ? ? x No 0.08–0.2 15–24 >60 Yes
Suni3D (Ceph) 40–99 2–10 0.5 ? ? x No 0.08–0.2 15–24 >60 Yes
Suni Q3D 60–90 4–12 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 7.7–14.5 ? ?
Suni Q3D (Ceph) 60–90 4–12 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x Yes 0.075–0.4 7.7–14.5 ? ?
Trident (Italy) X-View Cone Beam 61–85 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.16 15 >10 Yes
X-View Cone Beam (Ceph) 61–85 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x No 0.16 15 >10 Yes
Vatech (Republic of Korea) PaX i3D 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 ? ?
PaX i3D (SC or OP) 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 ? ?
PaX i3D Smart / i3D Smart 8 × 8 60–99 4–16 0.5 ? 14 x No 0.2–0.3 13.5 95 ?
PaX i3D Smart (Ceph)/ i3D Smart 8 × 8 SC 60–99 4–16 0.5 ? 14 x No 0.2–0.3 13.5 95 ?
PaX i3D Smart 2/Green Smart / Smart Plus / i3D Smart 60–99 4–16 0.5 ? 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 18 ? ?
PaX i3D Smart 2 (Ceph) / Green Smart SC / Smart Plus RC / i3D Smart RC 60–99 4–16 0.5 ? 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 18 ? ?
PaX i3D Green / Green CT 50–100 4–16 0.5 ? 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 9–15 ? ?
PaX i3D Green SC or OP / Green CT SC or OP 50–100 4–16 0.5 ? 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 9–15 ? ?
PaX i3D 2/Green CT 2/Green 16 60–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 4.9–9 ? ?
PaX i3D 2 (Ceph) / Green CT 2 (Ceph) / Green 16 (Ceph) 60–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 4.9–9 ? ?
Green 18 60–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 4.9–9 ? ?
Green 18 (Ceph) 60–99 4–16 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 4.9–9 ? ?
Green 21/i3D Premium (AutoCeph) 60–120 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x No 0.2–0.4 18 ? ?
PaX Flex 3D P 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 >90 Yes
PaX Flex 3D PC 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 >90 Yes
PaX Uni 3D P 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 >90 Yes
PaX Uni 3D PC 50–90 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 >90 Yes
PaX Duo 3D 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) ? x x x No 0.12–0.3 15–24 >90 Yes
PaX Zenith 3D 50–120 4–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.3 15–24 >220 Yes
PaX Reve 3D 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.25 15–24 >120 ?
PaX Reve 3D OS 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 14 x x x No 0.08–0.25 15–24 >120 ?
Picasso Trio 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x x No 0.2 15–24 29 ?
Picasso Trio (Ceph) 50–90 2–10 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 12 x x x No 0.2 15–24 29 ?
Picasso Duo 3D 60–90 2–10 0.5 FPD 16 x No ? 18–24 20 ?
Picasso Master 3D 40–90 2–10 0.5 FPD 14 x No 0.16–0.2 24 29 ?
Picasso Pro 3D 40–90 2–10 0.5 ? ? x No 0.2–0.3 15 15 ?
PaX 500 ECT 40–90 2–10 0.5 FPD 14 x No 0.2 8 90 ?
PaX 500 ECT (Ceph) 40–90 2–10 0.5 FPD 14 x No 0.2 8 90 ?
Villa Sistemi Medicalli (Italy) Rotograph Evo 3D 60–86 6–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.16 18–20 18–40 ?
Rotograph Evo 3D (Ceph) 60–86 6–10 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 14 x x No 0.16 18–20 18–40 ?
Rotograph Prime 3D 60–86 2–12.5 0.5 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x No 0.087–0.17 6.2–9 ? ?
UEG Medical (China) Spectral 80–110 4–8 0.5 FPD (A-Si) 16 x No 0.075–0.3 ? >5 Yes
Xoran Technologies (USA) Minicat 120–125 7 0.3 ? 8 ? ? x ? 0.2–0.44 10–30 ? ?
Minicat IQ (ENT) 120 7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 10–30 ? ?
Minicat 2020 120 5.8 ? ? ? x No ? ? ? ?
XCat (Portable) 120 6 0.15 FPD (CsI) 8 x No 0.4 20 30–120 ?
Yoshida (Japan) Finecube 90 4 0.15 FPD (CsI) 14 x x No 0.1–0.16 8.6–34 >60 No
X-era Smart F+ 60–82 2–10 ? FPD (CMOS) 16 x No 0.08–0.1 11.5–23 ? ?
X-era Smart F+ (Ceph) 60–82 2–10 ? FPD (CMOS) 16 x No 0.08–0.1 11.5–23 ? ?
Yoshida (Japan) / ImageWorks (USA) X-era NF / Panoura X-era NF 70–90 2–4 0.2 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x Yes 0.09–0.15 12–20 ? ?
X-era NF (Ceph) / Panoura X-era NF (Ceph) 70–90 2–4 0.2 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x Yes 0.09–0.15 12–20 ? ?
X-era MF / Panoura X-era MF 70–90 2–4 0.2 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x Yes 0.09–0.23 12–20 ? ?
X-era MF (Ceph) / X-era MF (Ceph) 70–90 2–4 0.2 FPD (CMOS) 16 x x Yes 0.09–0.23 12–20 ? ?
Open in a new tab

CBCT, cone beam CT; 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; FOV, field of view; kV: kilovoltage; mA: miliamperes (tube current).‘CBCT mode’, the lower end of the reported kV range may only apply to panoramic and cephalometric modes.

a

Further information regarding detector components (e.g. scintillator) is shown in accordance with the terminology used by the manufacturer.

b

The FOV was divided according to the irradiated surface considering FOV height multiplied by its diameter. A small FOV was considered when the surface was ≤40 cm2; a medium FOV was considered if the surface was >40 cm2 and ≤100 cm2; and a large FOV if it was >100 cm2.

c

Scan time according to the values reported by the manufacture, although some of these values may actually refer to exposure time but no clear distinction could be made.

All CBCT systems use 2D-array detectors to generate and record projection images. Older technology devices have an image intensifier (II) along with a charge coupled device (CCD) that results in a spherical FOV and is larger and bulkier. Nowadays, the majority CBCT devices use flat panel detectors (FPD). II detectors were used in 3% of the units (only one unit is still available on the market), while 13% of the CBCT machines did not have information regarding the detector type available (Table 2). Nearly one-third (30%) of the manufactures did not report the bit depth of the detectors. From the reported CBCT devices, the bit depth ranged between 8 and 16 bits, with 14 bits being the most commonly used bit depth in all devices (Table 2).

Distribution of FOV options among the CBCT devices is displayed in Figure 4. Of all the CBCT devices examined, the smallest FOV was 20 × 20 mm (X1, 3Shape, Denmark). The device with the largest FOV was Viso (Planmeca, Finland), in which it is possible to achieve a 300 × 300 mm FOV via vertical stitching. A minority of the CBCT devices were equipped with Small/Large (n = 6), Small only (n = 14), Medium only (n = 16) and Medium/Large (n = 16) FOV options. A selection of FOVs comprising all three categories were found for 102 devices, and Small/Medium FOVs for 79 devices. The use of stitching method to extend FOV was clearly reported by the manufactures in 48 CBCT models.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Relative frequency of different options of field of view (small, medium, large, and combinations) among the CBCT devices, considering the availability of the devices on the market. CBCT, cone beam CT; FOV, field of view.

Voxel sizes varied between 0.05 mm (Smart Dental, LargeV, China) and 0.6 mm (Planmeca devices). All the machines presented isotropic voxels, except for one outdated machine (CB Throne, Hitachi, Japan) with a reported anisotropic voxel size of 0.1 × 2 mm or 0.2 × 4 mm.24 Scanning time of devices ranged between 1 and 55 s, although some of the reported scanning times are more likely to be related to the exposure time, especially for those presenting pulsed beam. Devices with the smallest scan times are Orthophos SL 3D, Orthophos S 3D, Orthophos XG 3D and Galileos Comfort Plus with a range of 2–5 s according to the manufacturer. Reconstruction time may vary depending on the workstation, but it is reported to be between 10 and 390 s (Table 2).

Information regarding the X-rays beam operation (i.e. pulsed or continuous) was not found for 32% of the devices. Of the remaining devices, the X-rays beam generation is pulsed in 78% of the machines, and 19% devices used continuous exposure. Five CBCT models (CS9300 Series, Carestream, France) reported both pulsed and not pulsed X-rays beam generation depending on the scanning mode (Table 2).

Considering the wide variation in reported technical characteristics and clinical performance of the available dentomaxillofacial CBCT devices, it is advised to aim for structured feature reporting, thus allowing identification of the proper devices fitting the clinical needs and encompassing the research questions. The suggested standardisation is shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Recommended standardisation of CBCT machines features to be reported by the manufacturers

Features Specific features Descriptiona
General Dimensions Width x depth x (maximum) height in meters
Weight Total machine weight in kilograms, without workstation
Patient positioning Standing, sitting, supine. Wheelchair accessibility
Software (acquisition) Software used for image acquisition
Software (DICOM viewer) Software used as DICOM viewer
Availability of DICOM structured report tools
     
X-rays Tube voltage (kV) Fixed (exact value) or variable (range)
Tube current (mA) Fixed (exact value) or variable (range)
Focal spot size Focal spot size in millimeters
X-rays beam generation Pulsed or continuous x-rays generation
     
Detector Detector type Type of the detector used for CBCT acquisitions (incl. scintillator and signal read-out system)
Detector dimensions Detector width x height in centimeters
Detector resolution Detector width x height in pixels
Binning (if applicable)
Detector bit depth Signal range of the detector
     
Volume and resolution Available FOV All available possibilities of FOV in the machine, not just the smallest and the biggest
Stitching for extended FOV The use of stitching to achieve bigger volumes. Specify if it is horizontal or vertical (or both) stitching
Voxel size All available voxel sizes, not just the smallest and the biggest
Rotation angle Rotation arc of the gantry during acquisition
     
Times Scan time Time taken for the whole scan (mean and range)
Exposure time Time taken only when the X-rays generation is occurring (mean and range)
Reconstruction time Time taken for the volume reconstruction (mean and range)
     
Radiation dose Dose index Range of RDSR-compliant dose index values (preferably dose-area product, possibly dose-length product), considering low- and high-dose protocols
Effective dose Range of effective dose (in µSv) calculated in an appropriate phantom, considering low- and high-dose protocols
Open in a new tab

CBCT, cone beam CT; FOV: field of view; RDSR: radiation dose structured report; µSv: micro-sieverts;kV: kilovoltage; mA: miliamper.

a

Importantly, for hybrid machines, the CBCT features should be reported separately from those of cephalometric and panoramic imaging.

Discussion

Dental X-ray examination and diagnosis have made great progress over the last 30 years. The number of manufacturers and devices using CBCT technology is growing rapidly. The first CBCT device (NewTom 9000 Maxiscan; Quantitative Radiology/Cefla Dental Group, Italy) was described in 1998 by Mozzo et al.9 Since then, there has been an increasing and continuous development of CBCT machines incorporating new technologies. In the present study, 279 CBCT models (143 CBCT series) from 47 manufacturers were catalogued. Only a few studies explored the features of several CBCT devices, yet there are no recent studies comparing those features for all machines. De Vos et al,20 Kau et al,18 and Nemtoi et al1 conducted similar reviews about the features of CBCT devices available before 2013.

An important development of second-generation CBCT devices was the detector type. Nowadays most of the devices use FPDs, which are distortion-free and show a wider dynamic range compared with the image intensifier detectors used in earlier CBCT models.25 The bit depth of detectors in most current CBCT devices is between 14 and 16 bits and seems reasonable for dentomaxillofacial practice.

Crucial differences among the CBCT devices were found in terms of machine size and weight, available imaging modalities, exposure parameters (kV and mA) and exposure mode and time, FOV size, voxel size, and both scanning and reconstruction time. Machine size and weight is important considering the often-limited physical space available to install a CBCT. One may also consider the imaging modalities required for clinical practice, as most of the machines are either 2-in-1 or 3-in-1. This choice also has an impact in the required room space for installing a machine. From what was observed in the previous compilation of CBCT,1 there has been an upward trend in developing hybrid devices, having the potential for both 2D and 3D extra oral imaging. Such devices are usually applying a smaller detector size, allowing a lower cost and a compact device, for upright patient imaging.

In contrast, the use of exclusive high-end CBCT devices is rapidly decreasing for the same reasons, which is unfortunate considering the often superior image quality of such dedicated devices.

X-ray beam quality and flux are determined by several parameters, such as tube voltage (kV) and tube current (mA).12 These parameters may be fixed for a given CBCT unit, or they can vary between pre-set exposure programs (e.g. large/small, adult/paediatric pre-sets) or manually adjusted by the operator.12,17 In the present overview, it was found that most of the current devices have adjustable kV and mA options. One must bear in mind that exposure parameters affect not only image quality, but also patient radiation dose, and therefore they should be adjusted to optimise the CBCT acquisition, maintaining image quality for diagnosis (as low as reasonably achievable – ALARA; and as low as diagnostically acceptable being indication-oriented and patient-specific– ALADAIP principles).26–28

Apart from exposure parameters, FOV selection also is crucial when acquiring a CBCT scan, as its size is related to the radiation dose.3,11,17 Furthermore, X-ray scatter is notably increased for large FOVs, which can impair image quality.29 It is also not practical to reconstruct larger FOVs at small voxel sizes due to excessive reconstruction time and file size; the use of a larger voxel size limits the spatial resolution,30 as discussed further below. FOVs can be divided into three categories: small, medium and large,25,31 with various combinations of diameter and height within these categories. FOVs may cover a few teeth, an entire jaw, or even the entire skull of the patient. It is advantageous to have devices with a selectable FOV so that the radiation dose given to the patient can be decreased depending on the indication of the examination (e.g. endodontic evaluation vs orthognathic surgery planning),11,32 although small and medium FOVs may cover most dental applications.25 To acquire bigger FOVs, CBCT device should have a large detector size, compatible to the FOV dimensions. However, a larger detector means more expensive machines. To overcome this additional expense in the manufacture, some devices employ automatic stitching of multiple scan volumes, either horizontal or vertical, to acquire larger FOVs.12 In some of the machines, an option to extend the FOV is available as an upgradable feature. CBCT images acquired using FOV stitching imply the acquisition of two (or more) adjacent exams with common areas to allow the fusion of the volumes into one, and therefore double radiation exposure in the overlap region.12 From a clinical point of view, it seems to interfere on image quality and artefacts expression, but this relation should be further investigated.

Usually, the FOV and voxel size are connected as for small FOV, smaller voxel sizes can be selected.3 A wide range of voxel sizes was found in the present study, ranging from 0.05 to 0.6 mm, and they should be selected according to the diagnostic task.3 Smaller voxel dimensions may be associated with better spatial resolution and may thus be necessary when a high level of detail is required. On the other hand, for a given FOV, a smaller voxel size is associated with a higher mAs, thus increasing the radiation dose to the patient. In addition, noise is increased.3,12,32 Therefore, CBCT devices should offer a number of different voxel sizes, so that the examinations allow the use of the largest voxel size (i.e. lowest radiation dose) while maintaining acceptable diagnostic accuracy.

The resolution of a CBCT image is also influenced by other parameters such as the focal spot size, number of projections (rotation angle & frame rate), reconstruction algorithm, scatter and patient motion.3,32 Patient positioning during image acquisition may affect the probability of motion artefacts. Patients in a standing position, as in the great majority of the devices, can be more susceptible to motion, especially in cases with motion disabilities.3 However, no studies have evaluated how the patient positioning can influence motion artefacts.33 Additionally, the scan time may play a role. In the present study, the mean scan time was between 17.5 s, depending on the FOV and voxel size selection. Shortening the scan time could contribute to avoid (but not eliminate) motion artefacts considering that the patient could remain still during a fast scan.33 However, if the patient moves during a shorter scan, the resulting motion artefact may be more pronounced than in a longer scan. Importantly, manufacturers should correctly report the scan time and the exposure time. The scan time correspond to the time between the first and last basis image acquisition while the exposure time is only related to those moments when the patient is exposed to radiation. In some machines very low scan time were reported (e.g. 1 s) and it is more likely to be the exposure time. The scanning time is only equal to the exposure time for CBCT devices that present a continuous beam operation mode (i.e. not pulsed). However, most of the CBCT devices presented a pulsed beam mode; therefore the scanning time is higher than the exposure time, but with the advantage of reducing radiation dose to the patient.3

Information on technical aspects of the machines are usually accessible on the company’s official website and downloadable brochures and device manuals. However, on some websites this information is limited. Even in brochures and manuals, one may not find all the technical information about the CBCT device. This difficulty was previously reported,1 thus some information could not be displayed in our current overview. This also applies to effective radiation dose range of the CBCT devices, which was probably the least reported feature (less than 40% of the machines). The lack of standardised data and the missing scientific reports comparatively assessing dose levels, prevented us from reporting tabulated comparative information on dosimetry. In a further report, an attempt will be made to compare the scientific output data for patient-specific and indication-oriented radiation dose levels. From the available evidence, we can summarise that differences in radiation dose levels are huge, both between and within specific CBCT devices. While some devices can provide 3D image data at the dose level of two to five panoramic images, such or other CBCT devices can also produces dose levels as high as medical CT when orienting towards another indication and parameter set-up. A 50-fold radiation dose difference can be easily seen when changing the settings in specific CBCT devices.27,34 A standardisation of the technical aspects and features reported regarding the CBCT devices would benefit researchers and practitioners when considering acquiring a machine (see also Table 3).

Conclusion

In conclusion, 279 CBCT devices models were catalogued. Given the wide range of CBCT devices available on the market at the time of writing, dental CBCT should be considered as a generic name applicable to a group of heterogeneous devices. The variability of CBCT features makes it impossible to draw general comparisons between different models, especially in the research field, since CBCT devices may present more variables related to the final image then the tested parameter. Therefore, a systematic review should be carried out to compare published research evidence on indications, image quality and radiation dose levels of all CBCTs on the market. The information tabulated in the present study will be later provided on the International Association of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology website (www.iadmfr.one). Considering ongoing developments and continued improvements, the present overview will need to be revised within 5 years.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement: The authors declare no conflict of interest. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Funding: Ruben Pauwels is supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement number 754513 and by Aarhus University Research Foundation (AIAS-COFUND).

Contributor Information

Hugo Gaêta-Araujo, Email: hugogaeta@hotmail.com.

Tamara Alzoubi, Email: Alzo3bi.tam@outlook.com.

Karla de Faria Vasconcelos, Email: karlafav13@gmail.com.

Kaan Orhan, Email: call53@yahoo.com.

Ruben Pauwels, Email: pauwelsruben@hotmail.com.

Jan W Casselman, Email: Jan.Casselman@azsintjan.be.

Reinhilde Jacobs, Email: reinhilde.jacobs@kuleuven.be.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Nemtoi A, Czink C, Haba D, Gahleitner A. Cone beam CT: a current overview of devices. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120443Available from. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20120443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jain S, Choudhary K, Nagi R, Shukla S, Kaur N, Grover D. New evolution of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: combining digital technologies. Imaging Sci Dent . 2019; 49: 179Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.5624/isd.2019.49.3.179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kiljunen T, Kaasalainen T, Suomalainen A, Kortesniemi M. Dental cone beam CT: a review. Physica Medica 2015; 31: 844–60Available from. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hayashi T, Arai Y, Chikui T, Hayashi-Sakai S, Honda K, Indo H, et al. . Clinical guidelines for dental cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol . 2018; 34: 89–104Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1007/s11282-018-0314-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Scarfe W. C, Angelopoulos C. Maxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-62061-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lamoral Y, Quirynen M, Peene P, Vanneste P, Lemahieu S, Baert A, et al. . Computed tomography in the preoperative planning of oral endo-osseous implant surgery. RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren 1990; 153: 505–9Available from. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1033428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Quirynen M, Lamoral Y, Dekeyser C, Peene P, van Steenberghe D, Bonte J, et al. . Ct scan standard reconstruction technique for reliable jaw bone volume determination. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants . 1990; 5: 384–9Available from[Internet]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Garg AK, Vicari A. Radiographic modalities for diagnosis and treatment planning in implant dentistry. Implant Soc . 1995; 5: 7–11Available from[Internet]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol . 1998; 8: 1558–64Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1007/s003300050586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arai Y, Tammisalo E, Iwai K, Hashimoto K, Shinoda K. Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 245–8Available from. doi: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Horner K, Jacobs R, Schulze R. Dental CBCT equipment and performance issues. Radiat Prot Dosimetry . 2013; 153: 212–8Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncs289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Scarfe WC, Li Z, Aboelmaaty W, Scott SA, Farman AG. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: essence, elements and steps to interpretation. Aust Dent J . 2012; 57(Suppl 1): 46–60Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01657.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Daly MJ, Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Jaffray DA, Irish JC. Intraoperative cone-beam CT for guidance of head and neck surgery: assessment of dose and image quality using a C-arm prototype. Med Phys . 2006; 33: 3767–80Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1118/1.2349687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am . 2008; 52: 707–30Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Korreman S, Rasch C, McNair H, Verellen D, Oelfke U, Maingon P, et al. . The European Society of therapeutic radiology and Oncology–European Institute of radiotherapy (ESTRO–EIR) report on 3D CT-based in-room image guidance systems: a practical and technical review and guide. Radiotherapy and Oncology . 2010; 94: 129–44Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rehani MM, Gupta R, Bartling S, Sharp GC, Pauwels R, Berris T, et al. . ICRP publication 129: radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT. Ann ICRP . 2015; 44: 7–127Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1177/0146645315575485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pauwels R, Araki K, Siewerdsen JH, Thongvigitmanee SS. Technical aspects of dental CBCT: state of the art. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140224Available from. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kau CH, BozÌŒicÌŒ M, English J, Lee R, Bussa H, Ellis RK. Cone-Beam computed tomography of the maxillofacial region—an update. Int. J. Med. Robotics Comput. Assist. Surg. 2009; 5: 366–80Available from. doi: 10.1002/rcs.279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. . Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol . 2012; 81: 267–71Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GRJ. Cone-Beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg . 2009; 38: 609–25Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.02.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sedentexct Radiation Protection 172: Cone Beam CT for Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology - Evidence-based Guidelines. Off Off Publ Eur Communities [Internet] 2012; 156. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, et al. . Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140197Available from. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl(Supplement): 55–77. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yajima A, Otonari-Yamamoto M, Sano T, Hayakawa Y, Otonari T, Tanabe K, et al. . Cone-Beam CT (CB Throne) applied to Dentomaxillofacial region. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll . 2006; 47: 133–41Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.2209/tdcpublication.47.133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nasseh I, Al-Rawi W. Cone beam computed tomography. Dent Clin North Am . 2018; 62: 361–91Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2018.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Goulston R, Davies J, Horner K, Murphy F. Dose optimization by altering the operating potential and tube current exposure time product in dental cone beam CT: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20150254Available from. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20150254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B. Cone-Beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol . 2018; 48: 308–16Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1007/s00247-017-4012-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37(2-4): 1-332. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H, Panmekiate S. Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone beam computed tomography: effect of field of view size and position. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol . 2016; 121: 188–95Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2015.10.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Stamatakis H, Tsiklakis K, Walker A, Bosmans H, et al. . Comparison of spatial and contrast resolution for cone-beam computed tomography scanners. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol . 2012; 114: 127–35Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health . 2018; 18: 88Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dawood A, Patel S, Brown J. Cone beam CT in dental practice. Br Dent J . 2009; 207: 23–8Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Spin-Neto R, Wenzel A. Patient movement and motion artefacts in cone beam computed tomography of the dentomaxillofacial region: a systematic literature review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol . 2016; 121: 425–33Available from[Internet]. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2015.11.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jacobs R. Dental cone beam CT and its justified use in oral health care. J Belgian Soc Radiol [Internet] 2011; 94: 254Available from. doi: 10.5334/jbr-btr.662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Dentomaxillofacial Radiology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES