Over the last 15 years, cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging has emerged as an important supplemental radiographic technique for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning, especially in situations which require an understanding of the complex anatomic relationships and surrounding structures of the maxillofacial skeleton. CBCT imaging provides unique features and advantages to enhance orthodontic practice over conventional extraoral radiographic imaging. While it is the responsibility of each practitioner to make a decision, in tandem with the patient/family, consensus-derived, evidence-based clinical guidelines are available to assist the clinician in the decision-making process. Specific recommendations provide selection guidance based on variables such as phase of treatment, clinically-assessed treatment difficulty, the presence of dental and/or skeletal modifying conditions, and pathology. CBCT imaging in orthodontics should always be considered wisely as children have conservatively, on average, a three to five times greater radiation risk compared with adults for the same exposure. The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the operation of CBCT equipment as it relates to image quality and dose, highlight the benefits of the technique in orthodontic practice, and provide guidance on appropriate clinical use with respect to radiation dose and relative risk, particularly for the paediatric patient.

With the introduction of multimedia computed systems, a revolution equal in magnitude to the introduction of the air-turbine handpiece is presently under way in general dental practice. Alongside the introduction of new direct digital radiographic devices, dental imaging is expanding to include video, and optical impressions for Cad-Cam, all of which have common image processing needs. Hence, it is time for maxillofacial radiologists to decide what their role should be both during and after the change. This has major ramifications in terms of assignment of responsibilities between disciplines as the dental curriculum is redesigned to train the modern dentist.

Regarding subjective image quality, the Schick CMOS and CCD detectors were perceived to produce radiographic images of similar overall quality.

Although the mean time to make a FMS was slightly shorter on average with ScanX) than DenOptix), this difference was not proven to be statistically significant (P>0.05) in terms of time efficiency in producing a FMS.

For the Dexis intraoral radiographic imaging system, estimated SNR improved both with higher filtration and with lower kVp. The Dexis detector was capable of generating acceptable images of the step wedge at a wide range of kVp settings.