Inter-Occlusal Separation in CBCT Imaging: Rationale and Method

Amr El-Beialy, Yehya Mostafa

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

DOI: 10.4236/ojmi.2012.22013                

Abstract

A major advantage of CBCT is the ability to allow single-step data acquisition that computes all our diagnostic information and substitutes several conventional procedures of record taking. Yet, there are several protocols for CBCT imaging as regards the interocclusal separation, each with a drastic shortcoming. The authors herein propose a protocol that offers acceptable inter-occlusal separation during CBCT imaging using a radiolucent splint that guarantees reproducibility, undisrupted facial form, centric condylar position concurrently with feasibility for occlusal analysis, separation of the maxillary and mandibular teeth and hence digital simulation of the orthodontic treatment.

Keywords

Diagnosis; Diagnostic Imaging; Radiography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	B. F. Gribel, M. N. Gribel, F. R. Manzi, S. L. Brooks and J. A. McNamara Jr., “From 2D to 3D: An Algorithm to Derive Normal Values for 3-Dimensional Computerized Assessment,” Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2011, pp. 3-10. doi:10.2319/032910-173.1
[2]	V. Kumar, J. Ludlow, L. H. S. Cevidanes and A. Mol, “In Vivo Comparison of Conventional and Cone Beam CT Synthesized Cephalograms,” Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 78, No. 5, 2008, pp. 873-879. doi:10.2319/082907-399.1
[3]	T. Deguchi, S. Katashiba, T. Inami, K. W. C. Foong and Y. H. Chan, “Morphologic Quantification of the Maxilla and the Mandible with Cone-Beam Computed Tomography,” American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 137, No. 2, 2010, pp. 218-222. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.029
[4]	P. M. Cattaneo, C. B. Bloch, D. Calmar, M. Hjortsh?j and B. Melsen, “Comparison between Conventional and ConeBeam Computed Tomography—Generated Cephalograms,” American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 134, No. 6, 2008, pp. 798-802. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.008
[5]	B. F. Gribel, M. N. Gribel, D. C. Frazao, J. A. McNamara Jr. and F. R. Manzi, “Accuracy and Reliability of Craniometric Measurements on Lateral Cephalometry and 3D Measurements on CBCT Scans,” Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2011, pp. 26-35. doi:10.2319/032210-166.1
[6]	A. R. El-Beialy, A. M. Abou-El-Ezz, K. H. Attia, A. M. El-Bialy and Y. A. Mostafa, “Loss of Anchorage of Miniscrews: A 3-Dimensional Assessment,” American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 136, No. 5, 2007, pp. 700-707. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.059
[7]	H. M. El-Zanaty, A. R. El-Beialy, A. M. Abou El-Ezz, K. H. Attia, A. R. El-Bialy and Y. A. Mostafa, “Three-Dimensional Dental Measurements: An Alternative to Plaster Models,” American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 137, No. 2, 2010, pp. 259-265. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.030
[8]	A. A. Othman, A. R. El-Beialy, S. A. Fawzy, A. H. Kandil, A. M. El-Bialy and Y. A. Mostafa, “Methods for Managing 3-Dimensional Volumes,” American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 137, No. 2, 2010, pp. 266-273. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.024