Scanning procedure optimization for computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography in cranio-maxillofacial surgeries: a systematic review

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14739/mmt.2026.2.338983

Keywords:

computer tomography, cone-beam CT, cranio-maxillofacial imaging, scanning parameters optimization, image artifacts, segmentation accuracy, radiation dose reduction, beam hardening correction, scatter artifact mitigation, motion artifact suppression, artificial intelligence in medical imaging, deep learning artifact correction

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are essential imaging tools for visualization in cranio-maxillofacial (CMF) surgery, providing high-resolution, 3D anatomical data for diagnosis, surgical planning, and follow-up. CT offers broader anatomical coverage and soft tissue contrast, while CBCT provides detailed bone imaging at lower radiation doses. However, both modalities are prone to artifacts – beam hardening, scatter, motion, and metal interference – that reduce image accuracy. Optimization of scanning parameters and protocols is essential to balance diagnostic quality with radiation safety. In parallel, deep learning approaches such as convolutional and generative adversarial networks are being explored for artifact suppression and segmentation enhancement.

Aim. The aim of the study is to review and compare CT and CBCT to identify the most optimal scanning parameters for cranio-maxillofacial imaging, ensuring high diagnostic accuracy while minimizing radiation exposure and artifact impact.

Materials and methods. A systematic search of scientific studies was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science using keywords: CBCT optimization, CT artifact correction, cranio-maxillofacial imaging, and deep learning in CT / CBCT. Inclusion criteria: studies assessing scanning parameters, image quality, artifact correction techniques in CMF contexts. Clinical, in vitro, and ex vivo studies were included. In total, 85 papers were analyzed.

Results. Optimal parameters – voxel sizes of 0.075–0.125 mm for CBCT and slice thicknesses of 0.50–1.25 mm for CT – improved diagnostic accuracy and segmentation outcomes. CBCT was preferred for bone structures, while CT remained superior for soft tissue and trauma. Traditional correction methods showed Dice gains of 6–15 %. AI-based models demonstrated higher performance, reducing artifacts by up to 70 % and achieving Dice scores up to 0.95. However, clinical adoption remains limited due to regulatory and standardization barriers.

Conclusions. Optimizing scan parameters significantly improves diagnostic performance in CMF imaging. While AI-based artifact correction shows strong potential, integration into clinical workflows requires further validation and regulatory alignment.

Author Biographies

M. A. Tsarenko, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

Postgraduate Student, Department of Biomedical Engineering

L. Ye. Kalashnikova, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering

References

  1. Loughlin A, Bhatti N, Adams A. Imaging of Trauma and Acquired Conditions of the Temporomandibular Joint. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2025;35(4):477-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2025.06.006
    | |
  2. Gaêta-Araujo H, Chang M, Felizardo H, Tirapelli C, Oliveira-Santos C. Accuracy of bone graft loss assessment around titanium and zirconium implants at varying voxel sizes – An ex vivo CBCT study. Digital Dentistry Journal. 2025;1(1):100006. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddj.2025.100006
  3. Regnstrand T, Top SK, Karsten A, Jacobs R, Benchimol D. Dose Reduction by Field of View Optimisation in Cone-Beam Computed Tomography of Unilateral Alveolar Clefts. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2025;28(5):820-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12938
    | |
  4. Al-Haj Husain A, Mergen V, Valdec S, Winklhofer S, Alkadhi H, Essig H, et al. Cone-beam versus photon-counting detector CT: Influence of dose variations on the detection of simulated mandibular osseous lesions. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025;53(8):1236-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.04.023
    | |
  5. Mortazavi S, Khadem-Reza ZK, Parvaresh M. Investigation of the effect of field of view on the amount of dental implant artifacts in cone beam computed tomography images. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2024;55(1):192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-024-01274-3
    |
  6. Jiang S, Sun Y, Xu S, Zhang Z, Wu Z. Metal artifact correction in industrial CT images based on a dual-domain joint deep learning framework. Appl Sci (Basel). 2024;14(8):3261. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app14083261
    |
  7. Majidpour J, Ahmed HA, Ahmed MH, Jalal SI, Arabi H. Applications of GAN models in breast cancer detection: A comprehensive review. Arch Comput Methods Eng. 2026;33(1):859-915. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-025-10323-7
    |
  8. Spenkelink IM, Heidkamp J, Verhoeven RL, Jenniskens SF, Fantin A, Fischer P, et al. Feasibility of a Prototype Image Reconstruction Algorithm for Motion Correction in Interventional Cone-Beam CT Scans. Acad Radiol. 2024;31(6):2434-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.12.030
    | |
  9. Seidel D, Neugebauer J, Dhom G, Weinhold O, Zimmermann KP, Sader R, et al. A Comparative Evaluation of the Primary and Secondary Stability of Dental Implants with Progressive and Conventional Thread Designs: A Prospective Non-Interventional Study of 100 Implants in 62 Patients. J Clin Med. 2025;14(9):3040. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14093040
    | |
  10. de Win M. Imaging of the Orbit: “Current Concepts”. In: Surgery in and around the Orbit. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. p. 121-39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40697-3_4
  11. Valls-Esteve A, Adell-Gómez N, Munuera J, Bagatto D, Tel A. Dedicated acquisition protocols in radiology for virtual surgical planning and 3D printing. In: Atlas of Virtual Surgical Planning and 3D Printing for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025. p. 27-49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94495-6_2
  12. Lievens M, De Kock L, Ureel M, Villeirs G, Van Paepegem W, Coopman R. The Accuracy of an Optical White Light Desktop 3D Scanner and Cone Beam CT Scanner Compared to a Multi-Slice CT Scanner to Digitize Anatomical 3D Models: A Pilot Study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2025;18(2):27. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18020027
    |
  13. Ünal SY, Namdar Pekiner F. Evaluation of the mandibular canal and the third mandibular molar relationship by CBCT with a deep learning approach. Oral Radiol. 2025;41(2):222-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-024-00793-z
    | |
  14. Ge W, Liu Z, Cui H, Yuan X, Yang Y. A comprehensive dual energy method for CBCT metal artifact reduction. Phys Med Biol. 2024;70(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad9db1
    | |
  15. de Oliveira V, Queiroz PM, Simões AR, Alves M, Jardini M, Costa A, et al. Voxel Size and Field of View Influence on Periodontal Bone Assessment Using Four CBCT Systems: An Experimental Ex Vivo Analysis. Tomography. 2025;11(7):74. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography11070074
    | |
  16. Han X, Wei D, Jiang X, Di P, Yi C, Lin Y. Digital registration versus cone-beam computed tomography for evaluating implant position: a prospective cohort study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04088-x
    | |
  17. Bohner L, Parize H, Cordeiro J, Laureano NK, Kleinheinz J, Caldas RA, et al. Bone quality assessment around dental implants in cone-beam CT images: effect of rotation mode and metal artefact reduction tool. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2025;54(4):286-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf003
    | |
  18. Matta RE, Knapp Giacaman S, Wiesmueller M, Lutz R, Uder M, Wichmann M, et al. Quantitative analysis of zirconia and titanium implant artefacts in three-dimensional virtual models of multi-slice CT and cone beam CT: does scan protocol matter? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023;52(8):20230275. doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230275
    | |
  19. Liu Y, Lu K, Yin FF. Deep learning-based projection extrapolation for limited-angle CBCT reconstruction. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025;123(1):e756. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.06.3202
  20. Jaeggi MK, Ghamri M, Dritsas K, Psomiadis S, Verna C, Halazonetis D, et al. Accuracy of anterior cranial base surfaces acquired from computed tomography imaging. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):24321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09104-w
    | |
  21. Zhang C, Xie Y, Liang X. XGenRecon: A new perspective in ultrasparse volumetric CBCT reconstruction through geometry-controlled X-ray projection generation. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2025;9(1):95-106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/trpms.2024.3420742
    | |
  22. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, et al. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):265-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/30642039
    | |
  23. Aljaafari L, Speight R, Buckley DL, Bird D, Al-Qaisieh B. Clinical validation of using a commercial synthetic-computed tomography solution for brain MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2025;35:100328. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2025.100328
    | |
  24. Murat S, Kamburoğlu K, Vazquez D, Nart LJ, Azcona V, Benitez LE, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of Accuracy of CBCT-Derived Volumes in Maxillary Defects: Effects of kVp, Device, and Software. Diagnostics (Basel). 2025;15(10):1247. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101247
    | |
  25. Ji Y, Chen Y, Liu G, Long Z, Gao Y, Huang D, et al. Construction and Evaluation of an AI-based CBCT Resolution Optimization Technique for Extracted Teeth. J Endod. 2024;50(9):1298-306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2024.05.015
    | |
  26. Minhas S, Wu TH, Kim DG, Chen S, Wu YC, Ko CC. Artificial Intelligence for 3D Reconstruction from 2D Panoramic X-rays to Assess Maxillary Impacted Canines. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024;14(2):196. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14020196
    | |
  27. Al-Haj Husain A, Mergen V, Sandhu S, Wagner M, Demmert TT, Alkadhi H, et al. Postoperative assessment of fracture reduction and osteosynthesis materials using photon-counting detector CT in maxillofacial trauma – a pilot study. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025;29(1):171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-025-01470-z
    | |
  28. Niño-Sandoval TC, Landim FS, Vasconcelos B. Deep learning for orbital fracture detection and reconstruction: A systematic review on diagnostic accuracy and surgical planning. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2025;53(9):1501-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.06.008
    | |

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-06-09

How to Cite

Tsarenko, M. A., & Kalashnikova, L. Y. (2026). Scanning procedure optimization for computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography in cranio-maxillofacial surgeries: a systematic review. Modern Medical Technology, 18(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.14739/mmt.2026.2.338983

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 2 (2026)

Section

Reviews of literature

License

Copyright (c) 2026 M. A. Tsarenko, L. Ye. Kalashnikova

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The work is provided under the terms of the Public Offer and of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license allows an unlimited number of persons to reproduce and share the Licensed Material in all media and formats. Any use of the Licensed Material shall contain an identification of its Creator(s) and must be for non-commercial purposes only.