title: Four curious cases of cone-beam computed tomography.
abstract: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become popular, and its many inherent advantages are indisputable. Nevertheless, CBCT is prescribed cautiously because the radiation dosage is higher than that of conventional radiography. When and to what extent should CBCT be prescribed for orthodontic patients? The purpose of this article is to present 4 curious cases in which a considerable discrepancy was found between the conventional panoramic radiograph and the CBCT view. Is it time to spare patients an unnecessary conventional panoramic radiograph and shift to CBCT for all patients?
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. mangoury@usa.net
authors.forename: Yehya A
authors.initials: YA
authors.lastname: Mostafa
authors.forename: Amr Ragab
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: El-Beialy
authors.forename: Gihan A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Omar
authors.forename: Mona Salah
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Fayed
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001641:Bicuspid / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; D005260:Female; D005547:Foreign Bodies / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D008337:Mandibular Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008437:Maxilla; D008443:Maxillary Sinus / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D009666:Nose / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D052280:Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011862:Radiography, Panoramic; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*