Andy Wai Kan Yeung, Benjamin Salmon, Anne Caroline Oenning
<p>It takes a lot of effort and resources to conduct experiments to compare and determine the best low-dose CBCT protocol(s) for children with an optimized balance between the diagnostic value (image quality) and radiation safety (radiation dose) according to the ALADAIP (As Low as Diagnostically Acceptable being Indication-oriented and Patient-specific) principle.<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> It would be highly beneficial if the academic and clinical communities actively examined and applied the original studies that established these low-dose CBCT protocols. On February 22, 2024, we searched for the literature through the Web of Science Core Collection with the following search string: Topic—(pediatric OR paediatric OR child*) AND CBCT AND (low-dose OR “low dose” OR optimi*). The search string identified papers that mentioned these words and their derivatives in the title, abstract, and keywords. The search yielded 77 original articles. Studies were included if they tested multiple scanning protocols, recruited human subjects or used phantom heads, and evaluated the image quality with either subjective or objective measurements. Studies were excluded if they were not written in English. After screening their titles and abstracts, we identified five studies that established low-dose CBCT protocols for various indications in paediatric patients: Hidalgo Rivas et al. (2015), EzEldeen et al. (2017), Oenning et al. (2019), Brasil et al. (2019), and Ito et al. (2023).<span><sup>3-7</sup></span> An additional study by Lemberger et al. (2023)<span><sup>8</sup></span> was identified by hand searching. No study was removed due to language issues (i.e., non-English).</p><p>The protocols advocated by these studies were surely very different in terms of the parameter settings, due to the different CBCT units as well as the different diagnostic indications tested, but they share common findings: The current and exposure time (mAs) can be reduced while maintaining sufficient image quality for clinical task in children. In this era of evidence-based dentistry, paediatric patients would benefit much more if such protocols were repeatedly tested and validated (and fine-tuned) by different research teams. Then, these protocols could be readily translated into daily clinical practice with steadfast evidence instead of being preliminary recommendations. In addition, the literature indicates that imaging performance and radiation dose outcomes in CBCTs cannot be directly extrapolated across different CBCT models due to significant variations in technical characteristics and clinical diagnostic efficacy.<span><sup>9</sup></span> There is an urgent need for additional studies that use consistent methodologies to test new machines and protocols. In particular, only Lemberger et al. (2023) was a clinical study, whereas the other five were phantom head studies. More clinical studies would be beneficial, because the subjective image quality assessment based on real patient
{"title":"Lack of testing and adherence to optimized low-dose CBCT protocols for children","authors":"Andy Wai Kan Yeung, Benjamin Salmon, Anne Caroline Oenning","doi":"10.1111/ipd.13253","DOIUrl":"10.1111/ipd.13253","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It takes a lot of effort and resources to conduct experiments to compare and determine the best low-dose CBCT protocol(s) for children with an optimized balance between the diagnostic value (image quality) and radiation safety (radiation dose) according to the ALADAIP (As Low as Diagnostically Acceptable being Indication-oriented and Patient-specific) principle.<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> It would be highly beneficial if the academic and clinical communities actively examined and applied the original studies that established these low-dose CBCT protocols. On February 22, 2024, we searched for the literature through the Web of Science Core Collection with the following search string: Topic—(pediatric OR paediatric OR child*) AND CBCT AND (low-dose OR “low dose” OR optimi*). The search string identified papers that mentioned these words and their derivatives in the title, abstract, and keywords. The search yielded 77 original articles. Studies were included if they tested multiple scanning protocols, recruited human subjects or used phantom heads, and evaluated the image quality with either subjective or objective measurements. Studies were excluded if they were not written in English. After screening their titles and abstracts, we identified five studies that established low-dose CBCT protocols for various indications in paediatric patients: Hidalgo Rivas et al. (2015), EzEldeen et al. (2017), Oenning et al. (2019), Brasil et al. (2019), and Ito et al. (2023).<span><sup>3-7</sup></span> An additional study by Lemberger et al. (2023)<span><sup>8</sup></span> was identified by hand searching. No study was removed due to language issues (i.e., non-English).</p><p>The protocols advocated by these studies were surely very different in terms of the parameter settings, due to the different CBCT units as well as the different diagnostic indications tested, but they share common findings: The current and exposure time (mAs) can be reduced while maintaining sufficient image quality for clinical task in children. In this era of evidence-based dentistry, paediatric patients would benefit much more if such protocols were repeatedly tested and validated (and fine-tuned) by different research teams. Then, these protocols could be readily translated into daily clinical practice with steadfast evidence instead of being preliminary recommendations. In addition, the literature indicates that imaging performance and radiation dose outcomes in CBCTs cannot be directly extrapolated across different CBCT models due to significant variations in technical characteristics and clinical diagnostic efficacy.<span><sup>9</sup></span> There is an urgent need for additional studies that use consistent methodologies to test new machines and protocols. In particular, only Lemberger et al. (2023) was a clinical study, whereas the other five were phantom head studies. More clinical studies would be beneficial, because the subjective image quality assessment based on real patient","PeriodicalId":14268,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paediatric dentistry","volume":"35 1","pages":"7-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11626560/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141897428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}