Tobias Regnstrand, Semra Konstantin Top, Agneta Karsten, Reinhilde Jacobs, Daniel Benchimol
{"title":"单侧牙槽裂锥束计算机断层扫描视野优化减剂量的研究。","authors":"Tobias Regnstrand, Semra Konstantin Top, Agneta Karsten, Reinhilde Jacobs, Daniel Benchimol","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate how much the field of view (FOV) can be decreased while still depicting the necessary anatomical structures. A secondary aim was to assess how many incidental findings were missed with a reduced FOV.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, 170 CBCT volumes from children with a mean age of 9.4 years were collected. All CBCT had a FOV of 80 × 50 mm covering the maxilla. The present study analysed whether a smaller FOV can be used while still including necessary anatomical structures. Measurements of the minimal height and width that include vital anatomical structures were performed with two FOV reduction protocols: one smaller (includes the cleft, adjacent central incisor and adjacent canine) and one larger (includes both canines, nasal floor and the cleft).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of the larger protocol resulted in a FOV of 44.3 × 36.5 mm (95th percentile); for the smaller protocol, the FOV was 28.1 × 34.9 mm (95th percentile). In the larger protocol, incidental findings were missed in 22%. In the smaller protocol, 35% of the incidental findings were missed. However, most of these findings were irrelevant to the planning of the bone graft.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A FOV of 50 × 40 mm (41% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to fully depict the cleft area, central incisors, nasal floor and both canines. A FOV of 35 × 40 mm (56% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to depict the cleft and the ipsilateral canine and central incisor adjacent to the cleft.</p>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dose Reduction by Field of View Optimisation in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography of Unilateral Alveolar Clefts.\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Regnstrand, Semra Konstantin Top, Agneta Karsten, Reinhilde Jacobs, Daniel Benchimol\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ocr.12938\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate how much the field of view (FOV) can be decreased while still depicting the necessary anatomical structures. A secondary aim was to assess how many incidental findings were missed with a reduced FOV.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, 170 CBCT volumes from children with a mean age of 9.4 years were collected. All CBCT had a FOV of 80 × 50 mm covering the maxilla. The present study analysed whether a smaller FOV can be used while still including necessary anatomical structures. Measurements of the minimal height and width that include vital anatomical structures were performed with two FOV reduction protocols: one smaller (includes the cleft, adjacent central incisor and adjacent canine) and one larger (includes both canines, nasal floor and the cleft).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of the larger protocol resulted in a FOV of 44.3 × 36.5 mm (95th percentile); for the smaller protocol, the FOV was 28.1 × 34.9 mm (95th percentile). In the larger protocol, incidental findings were missed in 22%. In the smaller protocol, 35% of the incidental findings were missed. However, most of these findings were irrelevant to the planning of the bone graft.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A FOV of 50 × 40 mm (41% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to fully depict the cleft area, central incisors, nasal floor and both canines. A FOV of 35 × 40 mm (56% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to depict the cleft and the ipsilateral canine and central incisor adjacent to the cleft.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12938\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12938","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dose Reduction by Field of View Optimisation in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography of Unilateral Alveolar Clefts.
Objective: This study aimed to investigate how much the field of view (FOV) can be decreased while still depicting the necessary anatomical structures. A secondary aim was to assess how many incidental findings were missed with a reduced FOV.
Material and methods: In this retrospective study, 170 CBCT volumes from children with a mean age of 9.4 years were collected. All CBCT had a FOV of 80 × 50 mm covering the maxilla. The present study analysed whether a smaller FOV can be used while still including necessary anatomical structures. Measurements of the minimal height and width that include vital anatomical structures were performed with two FOV reduction protocols: one smaller (includes the cleft, adjacent central incisor and adjacent canine) and one larger (includes both canines, nasal floor and the cleft).
Results: The use of the larger protocol resulted in a FOV of 44.3 × 36.5 mm (95th percentile); for the smaller protocol, the FOV was 28.1 × 34.9 mm (95th percentile). In the larger protocol, incidental findings were missed in 22%. In the smaller protocol, 35% of the incidental findings were missed. However, most of these findings were irrelevant to the planning of the bone graft.
Conclusion: A FOV of 50 × 40 mm (41% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to fully depict the cleft area, central incisors, nasal floor and both canines. A FOV of 35 × 40 mm (56% dose reduction compared with the original FOV) is suggested to depict the cleft and the ipsilateral canine and central incisor adjacent to the cleft.
期刊介绍:
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions.
The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements.
The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.