Field of view and voxel size considerations in cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review

Syurri Innaddinna Syahraini  -  Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia
Bramma Kiswanjaya*  -  Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia
Menik Priaminiarti  -  Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia
Hanna H Bachtiar-Iskandar  -  Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.30659/odj.11.2.221-240
Background: Several factors must be considered when selecting the appropriate field of view (FOV) and voxel size for good image quality on Cone Beam Computed-Tomography (CBCT). The purpose of this study is to determine the factors that must be considered in selecting the appropriate FOV and voxel size to achieve good image quality according to the purpose of the examination.
Method: Articles in Q1 and Q2 journals published within the period from January 2016 to September 2021 were searched from Scopus and PubMed online using the keywords field of view/FOV in CBCT, voxel size in CBCT, and FOV and voxel size in CBCT. On the basis of the article selection criteria, 13 journals were included in the study. Also included in the study were several types of three-dimensional (3D) CBCT machines: Planmeca ProMax® 3D ProFaceTM, i-Cat Cone Beam 3D, Picasso Trio CBCT: Carestream unit® CS 9300 CBCT, and Accuitomo F17D 3D CBCT.
Result: It is generally recommended that a 0.2 mm voxel size be used to detect periodontal disease, secondary caries, fractures, external resorption, and endodontic complications. Meanwhile, for root fractures with an intracanal metallic post and an anatomic isthmus in the root canal, a 0.1 mm voxel size is recommended to be used, and for evaluating the implant, 0.3 mm and 0.4 mm voxel sizes are recommended.
Conclusion: It was found in the review that most of the selected studies recommended using the smallest FOV available in the CBCT unit to detect pathological conditions and important anatomical structures.

Keywords: cone-beam computed tomography; field of view; voxel size; image enhancement

  1. Toilet Scarf. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontic treatment. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116(2):238-57.
  2. Kau CH, Abramovitch K, Kamel SG, Bozic M. Cone beam CT of the head and neck anatomical atlas. Springer Singapore. 2011.p.3-7.
  3. Kamburoǧlu K, Onder B, Murat S, Avsever H, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. Radiographic detection of artificially created horizontal root fracture using different cone-beam CT units with small fields of view. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(4):20120261.
  4. Hassan BA, Payam J, Juyanda B, Van Der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Influence of scan setting selections on root canal visibility with cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012;41(8):645-8.
  5. Menezes CC, Janson G, Massaro CDS, Cambiaghi L, Garib DG. Precision, reproducibility, and accuracy of bone crest level measurements of CBCT cross-sections using different resolutions. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(4):535-42.
  6. Kamburoǧlu K, Murat S, Kolsuz E, Kurt H, Yüksel S, Paksoy C. Comparative assessment of subjective image quality of cross-sectional cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Oral Sci. 2011;53(4):501-8.
  7. Esmaeili EP, Ilo AM, Waltimo-Sirén J, Ekholm M. Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT scans of impacted maxillary canines. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:897-905.
  8. Lagos de Melo LP, Oenning ACC, Nadaes MR, et al. Influence of acquisition parameters on the evaluation of mandibular third molars through cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124(2):183-90.
  9. Brasil DM, Pauwels R, Coucke W, Haiter-Neto F, Jacobs R. Image quality optimization using a narrow vertical detector dental cone-beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019;48(3):20180357.
  10. Dillenseger JP, Gros CI, Sayeh A, et al. Image quality evaluation of small FOV and large FOV CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(1):1-10.
  11. Damstra J, Fourie Z, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137(1):16.e1-6.
  12. Sun Z, Smith T, Kortam S, Kim DG, Tee BC, Fields H. Effect of bone thickness on alveolar bone-height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(2):e117-27.
  13. Wood R, Sun Z, Chaudhry J, Tee BC, Kim DG, Leblebicioglu B, England G. Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;143(3):353-63.
  14. Patcas R, Müller L, Ullrich O, Peltomäki T. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;141(1):41-50.
  15. Tanaka Y, Dutra V, Lin WS, Levon J, Hamada Y. Evaluation of the accuracy of buccal bone thickness measurement from cone-beam computed tomography compared with histologic analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021:S0022-3913(21)00499-6.
  16. Icen M, Orhan K, Seker C, Geduk G, Ozlü FC, Cengiz MI. Comparison of CBCT with different voxel sizes and intraoral scanner for detection of periodontal defects: An in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2020;49(5):1-7.
  17. Baltacioglu IH, Eren H, Yavuz Y, Kamburoglu K. Diagnostic accuracy of different display types in detection of recurrent caries under restorations by using CBCT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(6):20160099.
  18. Kobayashi-Velasco S, Salineiro FCS, Gialain IO, Cavalcanti MGP. Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures in macerated canine maxillae: A comparison between two different CBCT protocols. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(6):20170037.
  19. Koç C, Sönmez G, Yılmaz F, Karahan S, Kamburoğlu K. Comparison of the accuracy of periapical radiography with CBCT taken at 3 different voxel sizes in detecting simulated endodontic complications: An ex vivo study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(4):1-9.
  20. Sönmez G, Koç C, Kamburoğlu K. Accuracy of linear and volumetric measurements of artificial ERR cavities by using CBCT images obtained at 4 different voxel sizes and measured by using 4 different software: An ex vivo research. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(8):20170325.
  21. Vieira HT, Vizzotto B. Diagnostic efficacy of different cone-beam computed tomography scanning protocols in the detection of chemically simulated external root resorption. 2020;130(3):322-7.
  22. Yamamoto-Silva FP, Siqueira CF de O, Silva MAGS, Fonseca RB, Santos AA, Estrela C, Silva BS de F. Influence of voxel size on cone-beam computed tomography-based detection of vertical root fractures in the presence of intracanal metallic posts. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018;48(3):177-84.
  23. Kursun-Cakmak EÅž, Kocasarac HD, Bayrak S, UstaoÄŸlu G, Noujeim M. Estimation of contrast-to-noise ratio in CT and CBCT images with varying scan settings in the presence of different implant materials. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019;48(8):4-9.
  24. Tolentino E de S, Amoroso-Silva PA, Alcalde MP, Yamashita FC, Iwaki LCV, Rubira-Bullen IRF, Duarte MAH. Comparison of limited- and large-volume cone-beam computed tomography using a small voxel size for detecting isthmuses in mandibular molars. Imaging Sci Dent. 2021;51:1-8.
  25. Hayashi Y, Ito M, Imanishi Y, Watanabe K, Matsumoto K, Arai Y, Honda K. Use of experimental phantoms to determine the accuracy and reliability of mandibular cortical width measurements by panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Sci. 2020;62(3):303-7.
  26. Alabdulwahid A, Alfaleh W. Identification of mandibular canal in cone-beam computed tomography plane with different voxel sizes. Saudi Dent J. 2020;32(8):403-9.

Lisensi Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
Contact us: Odonto Dental Journal: Jl. Raya Kaligawe Km.4, PO BOX 1054/SM Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, 50112. Email: odontodentaljournal@unissula.ac.id
apps