Dental Flat Panel Conebeam CT in the Evaluation of Patients with Inflammatory Sinonasal Disease: Diagnostic Efficacy and Radiation Dose Savings

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Sohaib SA,
   3. Peppercorn PD,
   4. Horrocks JA, et al

   . The effect of decreasing mAs on image quality and patient dose in sinus CT. Br J Radiol 2001;74:157–61

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Department of Health and Human Services (2006). What's NEXT? Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends: 2000 computed tomography. http://www.crcpd.org/Pubs/NEXT_docs/NEXT2000-CT.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2014.
3. 3.↵
   2. Mettler FA Jr.,
   3. Wiest PW,
   4. Locken JA, et al

   . CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20:353–59

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Mulkens TH,
   3. Broers C,
   4. Fieuws S, et al

   . Comparison of effective doses for low-dose MDCT and radiographic examination of sinuses in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1611–18

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Brenner DJ,
   3. Hall EJ

   . Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277–84

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Nauer CB,
   3. Eichenberger A,
   4. Dubach P, et al

   . CT radiation dose for computer-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery: dose survey and determination of dose-reduction limits. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:617–22

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Dammann F,
   3. Momino-Traserra E,
   4. Remy C, et al

   . Radiation exposure during spiral-CT of the paranasal sinuses [in German]. Rofo 2000;172:232–37

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Brem MH,
   3. Zamani AA,
   4. Riva R, et al

   . Multidetector CT of the paranasal sinus: potential for radiation dose reduction. Radiology 2007;243:847–52

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Kropil P,
   3. Cohnen M,
   4. Andersen K, et al

   . Image quality in multidetector CT of paranasal sinuses: potential of dose reduction using an adaptive post-processing filter [in German]. Rofo 2010;182:973–78

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Marmolya G,
    3. Wiesen EJ,
    4. Yagan R, et al

    . Paranasal sinuses: low-dose CT. Radiology 1991;181:689–91

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Tack D,
    3. Widelec J,
    4. De Maertelaer V, et al

    . Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:939–44

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Gupta R,
    3. Cheung AC,
    4. Bartling SH, et al

    . Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. Radiographics 2008;28:2009–22

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Miracle AC,
    3. Mukherji SK

    . Conebeam CT of the head and neck. Part 1. Physical principles. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1088–95

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Hashimoto K,
    3. Kawashima S,
    4. Araki M, et al

    . Comparison of image performance between cone-beam computed tomography for dental use and four-row multidetector helical CT. J Oral Sci 2006;48:27–34

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Bongartz G,
    3. Golding S,
    4. Jurik A, et al

    . European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. 2000; Publication no. EUR 16262 EN. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/htmlindex.htm. Accessed May 24, 2014.
16. 16.↵
    2. Ludlow JB,
    3. Davies-Ludlow LE,
    4. Brooks SL

    . Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom conebeam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:229–34

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Ludlow JB,
    3. Ivanovic M

    . Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106–14

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Wall BF,
    3. Hart D

    . Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations: report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB—National Radiological Protection Board. Br J Radiol 1997;70:437–39

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Press_Releases/160press.html. Accessed August 15, 2013.
20. 20.↵
    2. Güldner C,
    3. Ningo A,
    4. Voigt J, et al

    . Potential of dose reduction in cone-beam-computed tomography (CBCT) for radiological diagnostics of the paranasal sinuses. Eur Arch Otorhinolarygol 2013;270:1307–15

    CrossRef
21. 21.↵
    2. Fakhran S,
    3. Alhilali L,
    4. Sreedher G, et al

    . Comparison of simulated cone beam computed tomography to conventional helical computed tomography for imaging of rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2014;124:2002–06

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Zinreich SJ,
    3. Kennedy DW,
    4. Rosenbaum AE, et al

    . Paranasal sinuses: CT imaging requirements for endoscopic surgery. Radiology 1987;163:769–75

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Bulla S,
    3. Blanke P,
    4. Hassepass F, et al

    . Reducing the radiation dose for low-dose CT of the paranasal sinuses using iterative reconstruction: feasibility and image quality. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2246–50

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Schulz B,
    3. Potente S,
    4. Zangos S, et al

    . Ultra-low dose dual-source high-pitch computed tomography of the paranasal sinus: diagnostic sensitivity and radiation dose. Acta Radiol 2012;53:435–40

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    CT Maxillofacial (Sinus) Procedure and Cost Information. New Choice Health. 2013. http://www.newchoicehealth.com/Directory/Procedure/4/CT%20Maxillofacial%20(Sinus). Accessed October 25, 2013.
26. 26.↵
    2. Christell H,
    3. Birch S,
    4. Horner K, et al

    . A framework for costing diagnostic methods in oral health care: an application comparing a new imaging technology with the conventional approach for maxillary canines with eruption disturbances. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2012;40:351–61

    CrossRefPubMed