CBCT support for general dentistry

What would you like to do?

Review a clinical case, use the scan guides, estimate practice scan volume, and more.

Quick access

Educational support for clinicians. Imaging decisions require the full patient history, examination, and existing imaging. How this tool works

← All scan guides

Scan selection

Field of view & image detail

Choose the scan size and resolution that match the diagnostic question, patient context, and level of detail needed.

Main principle

Match the scan to the question

Select the scan coverage and image detail needed to answer the clinical question, considering the individual patient and ALADA/ALADAIP principles. Avoid unnecessary exposure; the smallest scan or highest resolution is not always the appropriate choice.

Localized questionSmaller fields of view are often appropriate when the clinical question is localized.
Broader anatomyBroader coverage may be appropriate when the anatomy of interest extends beyond one focused region.
Fine detailHigher resolution may be useful when subtle endodontic, root-surface, or cortical detail is clinically relevant.
Larger structuresStandard or lower-dose protocols may fit broader anatomy when fine-detail visualization is not the primary objective.

Scan coverage

Compare the area each field of view covers. Expand a card to review examples.

Focus field

Useful when the clinical question is highly localized and fine detail is important.

Review examples

May fit questions such as

  • Localized endodontic concern
  • Suspected vertical root fracture
  • Localized resorption evaluation
  • Focused periapical assessment
  • High-detail review of a limited anatomical region
  • Localized pre-surgical endodontic assessment

Single jaw

A single-jaw scan may be the practical minimum when implant planning, intraoral scan integration, or guide design needs continuous anatomy across one arch.

Review examples

Worth considering when

  • Multiple teeth within one arch are being evaluated
  • Implant planning requires regional anatomical context
  • Intraoral scan overlay or surgical guide design is anticipated
  • The anatomy of interest extends beyond a focus field
  • Sinus or mandibular canal relationship must be evaluated within one arch

Dual jaw

Dual-jaw imaging may help preserve anatomical relationship between arches while avoiding unnecessary expansion into a broader cranial scan.

Review examples

May be useful when

  • Both arches require evaluation together
  • Occlusal or opposing-tooth relationships are clinically relevant
  • Symptoms are difficult to localize between arches
  • Upper and lower anatomy together may improve interpretation
  • Broader restorative or functional relationships must be visualized

5x8 regional scan

A 5x8 FOV refers to approximately 5 cm width by 8 cm height, allowing upper and lower arch anatomy to be captured within a focused regional scan.

A 5x8 regional scan may be useful when the clinician needs focused anatomical detail while still capturing vertically related upper and lower anatomy within one localized region.

Review examples

Examples

  • Pain that radiates between upper and lower arches
  • Symptoms that are difficult to localize clinically
  • Evaluation involving opposing posterior teeth
  • Localized regional pathology involving both arches
  • A traditional focus field may be too restrictive vertically
  • Regional implant or surgical evaluation involving opposing anatomy

A 5x8 scan may help keep the view focused while still showing upper and lower anatomy in the same region.

Cranial scan

Cranial scans are generally reserved for situations where the clinical question cannot reasonably be answered using a more limited field of view.

Review examples

May be considered when

  • Airway or broader craniofacial anatomy is relevant
  • Orthodontic evaluation requires broad relationships
  • Broader surgical planning is being evaluated
  • Trauma or larger pathology assessment requires larger coverage
  • Bilateral or multi-regional anatomy must be reviewed together
  • Full craniofacial relationships are clinically relevant

Image detail

High resolution

May be useful when fine detail may affect interpretation.

Review examples
  • Fine endodontic detail
  • Suspected vertical root fracture
  • Resorption detail
  • Subtle periapical findings
  • Root morphology or canal anatomy
  • Pre-surgical endodontic planning

Standard resolution

May be appropriate when the diagnostic question is not dependent on the smallest visible detail.

Review examples
  • Broader anatomy review
  • Implant planning that does not require ultra-fine endodontic detail
  • Sinus, airway, impaction, orthodontic, or larger structural questions

Lower-dose / lower-resolution protocols

Often fit questions involving larger structures rather than subtle fine-detail interpretation.

Review examples
  • Larger anatomical structures
  • Broader anatomical orientation
  • Airway, sinus, orthodontic, craniofacial, or structural evaluation
  • Patient-specific dose considerations

System & lab notes

These notes refer to CSD systems and laboratory workflows. Confirm requirements for your equipment and lab.

High-resolution coverage on CSD systems

Some CBCT systems restrict high-resolution imaging to very small focus fields. CSD CBCT systems can capture high-resolution datasets across field sizes larger than a traditional localized focus field. This may allow clinicians to see fine detail while still including enough surrounding anatomy to answer the clinical question.

Preparing scans for laboratory workflows

High-resolution datasets from CSD CBCT systems may contain more detail and larger files than some labs prefer for routine guide fabrication or digital workflows.

Many labs prioritize manageable file size, enough anatomical coverage, efficient workflow, and easier segmentation rather than maximum possible resolution.

A scan optimized for fine clinical review may not always be the ideal dataset for every laboratory workflow. Confirm preferred scan settings, export requirements, file formats, and workflow limits before sending datasets.

This guidance is educational and intended to help align scan selection with the clinical question and ALADA/ALADAIP radiation-safety principles. It does not diagnose, recommend treatment, replace clinician judgment, or determine the correct scan protocol for an individual patient.
← All scan guides

Artifact examples

Compare artifact patterns

Compare common artifact patterns and review checks that can help with interpretation.

Check for patient movement first. Motion can duplicate borders, blur fine anatomy, and change the apparent size of small defects. Review the whole scan for motion before interpreting subtle findings.

Hover over an image to enlarge it. Click to open the image viewer.Tap an image to open the image viewer.

ImagePatternTypical appearanceHow to check it
Patient movementHow common? Most commonTypical appearanceSame CBCT machine, different patients: motion produces global blur, softer canal borders, and less interpretable trabecular/cortical detail.How to check itCompare edges across the whole scan. Motion affects many structures at once, while disease usually follows anatomy.
Beam hardeningHow common? Very commonTypical appearanceA black line or band adjacent to dense material. In a canal, it can look like obturation stops short or leaves an unfilled void.How to check itAsk whether the dark line follows the curve or contour of the radiopaque material blocking the x-rays. If it tracks the material instead of anatomy, treat it cautiously.
Scatter from metalHow common? Very commonTypical appearanceBroad dark bands, bright streaks, or starburst effects radiating from crowns, posts, restorations, or implants.How to check itLower confidence inside the scatter path. Correlate with clinical tests and 2D images before diagnosing cracks or bone loss next to metal.
Noise and limited fine detailHow common? CommonTypical appearanceGrainy texture or soft boundaries make subtle root-surface, canal, or cortical findings less certain.How to check itAdjust brightness/contrast and decide only from findings that persist across adjacent slices and planes.
Blending artifactaliasing / partial volumeHow common? OccasionalTypical appearanceThin structures may appear softened, merged together, interrupted, or less sharply separated than expected.How to check itReview nearby slices and multiple planes before deciding a structure is truly missing, fractured, or perforated.
Ring / detector artifactHow common? RareTypical appearanceCircular or band-like pattern unrelated to anatomy.How to check itLook for the same pattern crossing air, soft tissue, teeth, and bone. Anatomy respects anatomy; detector artifact does not.

Reference

CDT code reference

Common CBCT-related CDT codes for educational reference. Codes do not determine medical necessity, guarantee reimbursement, or replace current CDT guidance, payer policy, documentation requirements, or the procedure actually performed.

Reference only. Confirm code selection using current CDT guidance, payer policy, documentation requirements, and the procedure actually performed. Clinical indication, image content, and insurance coverage are separate considerations.

CodeReference description
D0364CBCT capture and interpretation with limited field of view, less than one whole jaw.
D0365CBCT capture and interpretation with field of view of one full dental arch, mandible.
D0366CBCT capture and interpretation with field of view of one full dental arch, maxilla, with or without cranium.
D0367CBCT capture and interpretation with field of view of both jaws, with or without cranium.
D0368CBCT capture and interpretation for TMJ series including two or more exposures.
D0381CBCT image capture and interpretation with field of view of one full dental arch, mandible.
D0382CBCT image capture and interpretation with field of view of one full dental arch, maxilla, with or without cranium.
D0383CBCT image capture with field of view of both jaws, with or without cranium.
D0384CBCT image capture for TMJ series including two or more exposures.

Evidence

About & references

How the case tool works

The case tool recognizes selected clinical questions, checks the reported circumstances and shows guidance with source links. It distinguishes missing information, conflicting details, existing imaging, unsupported purposes and topics outside its coverage.

Descriptions and follow-up answers are processed in your browser; they are not sent or saved. Omit patient identifiers. Recognition can be incomplete, and the software has not been independently validated as a clinical decision instrument.

Each result explains which information was used. It is not a diagnosis, a probability of disease or a prescription for a scan. Read the decision rules, source map and limitations.

The scan estimator uses your entered case counts and optional fee. These values and study outcome percentages do not influence clinical guidance.

Selected study findings

These results come from the study populations described in each source and may not apply to your case mix.

Guidance & patient selection

ADA/AAOMR 2026 clinical recommendations. The clinical case rules link directly to the applicable box or table in the full consensus recommendations. Full recommendations (PDF) · Journal DOI · Case-tool source map

AASM adult OSA diagnostic guideline (2017). Recommendations 1–2 support the case tool’s sleep-apnea diagnostic boundary. Full guideline (PDF)

AAE/AAOMR 2025 update. AAE newsroom announcement, January 14, 2026: the update replaces the 2015 statement, condenses recommendations to 12, emphasizes training, ALADAIP, selective use, and patient-specific protocols. Source

ADA/AAOMR patient selection and ADA safety guidance. ADA Oral Health Topic on X-rays/Radiographs, updated March 26, 2026: imaging should follow clinical need, patient selection criteria, ALARA/ALADA principles, and CBCT should be used when lower-exposure imaging will not provide the needed diagnostic information. Source

Research studies

Study results describe the populations and methods in each source. Review the source before applying a finding to your practice.

Applying AAE/AAOMR guidelines in endodontics. JADA 2024 study: CBCT was prescribed for 12% of patients, changed periapical diagnosis in 21% of evaluated teeth, and changed, established, or corrected treatment plans in 69% of evaluated cases overall. Reported rates describe the selected endodontic study population. They are not general-practice forecasts. Study DOI

Impact on endodontic diagnosis. The study "The impact of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the choice of endodontic diagnosis" reports diagnosis changes for at least one tooth in 41% of patients and 35% of evaluated teeth. Study DOI

Referral impact in endodontics. The study "CBCT assessment of referral reasons and impact on modifying treatment plan in endodontics" reports diagnosis changes in 34.45% in the abstract and major treatment-plan changes in 62.02% of referred endodontic cases. These results describe referred endodontic cases. Study DOI

Vertical root fracture diagnostic accuracy. Hassan and colleagues report overall diagnostic accuracy of 0.86 for CBCT and 0.66 for periapical radiographs in a laboratory study of vertical root fracture detection in endodontically treated teeth. Study DOI

Impacted canines. The 2025 Applied Sciences study reports that 51.5% of extraction decisions made with 2D data changed to orthodontic traction after CBCT review. This is specialty-specific impacted-canine context. Study DOI