CBCT Purchasing Guide: How to Choose the Perfect Machine - AGD

03, Mar. 2026

 

CBCT Purchasing Guide: How to Choose the Perfect Machine - AGD

CBCT Purchasing Guide: How to Choose the Perfect Machine

This is a Self-Instruction article worth one CE credit.

Recent CBCT purchaser David A. Scardella, DMD, recalls his decision-making process. 


Back in , I took out a sizable loan to purchase my first dental practice in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Stress and uncertainty abounded. Yet, five months later, I found myself taking out another loan to buy a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) machine. Why did I think it was so essential to my practice that I added almost $100,000 to my debt? How did I decide which machine to purchase? What features were important? How did I plan on paying for the new piece of equipment? 

Before I get into the details, I’ll answer one question upfront — if you’re considering buying a CBCT machine, don’t hesitate. It was a practice-changing decision for me. There are far more options today than there were even four years ago, so it’s easier to find what’s right for you. It can be confusing, but if you focus on a few key features that are important to your practice, you’ll be able to make the right decision. 


Why Buy? 
For me, the reason behind purchasing a CBCT machine for my practice was dental implants. The information gained from CBCT scans prior to dental implant placement is invaluable and quickly becoming the standard of care in implantology. While implants were placed for many years without CBCT scans, there is simply no reason not to have this data in today’s world. When treatment planning an implant case, there is no situation where I find it beneficial to have less information (e.g., a panoramic or periapical radiograph) rather than more information (a CBCT scan). 

If you’re not placing implants, there are certainly other uses for CBCT, most notably third molar extractions and endodontics. For third molar extractions, inferior alveolar nerve proximity to tooth roots can be easily determined using a CBCT image. In endodontic cases, CBCT will show periapical lesions far more clearly than traditional radiographs, especially around the maxillary sinus. It can also be used to navigate root canal anatomy and evaluate previously treated canals. However, in my small general dentistry practice, I likely wouldn’t have made the investment in CBCT if I wasn’t also placing implants.

The Right Fit
When you begin looking at CBCT machines, envision the space it will occupy in your office. If you’re limited in terms of space, your choices will also be limited. Fortunately, most CBCT machines take up approximately the same amount of space as a traditional panoramic machine, and many have both 3D and 2D sensors and are therefore able to capture panoramic radiographs as well as CT scans. Panoramic images can also be reconstructed from a CBCT image using software. This dual capability means your new CBCT machine can replace your old panoramic machine, so no additional space will be required. 

Size also matters when discussing field of view (FOV), which refers to how much of the patient’s head will be captured by the scan. The larger the FOV, the more data you will be responsible for interpreting. My suggestion is to choose the smallest FOV for what you want to accomplish. Most machines also allow you to narrow the FOV (and therefore decrease the radiation exposure) depending on what you’re scanning. For endo, a 5-by-5-centimeter FOV will be adequate in most cases. Oral surgeons typically get full-FOV machines — up to 16 by 16 cm. 

If you’re considering buying a CBCT machine, don’t hesitate. It was a practice changing decision for me.

As a general dentist who places implants but doesn’t extract wisdom teeth, I bought an 8-by-8-cm Planmeca® Promax® 3D Classic. In general, I’ve been very happy with my purchase. However, there are times when 8 by 8 cm is inadequate, such as with patients who have tall mandibles or longer faces. In these cases, the sinuses and apices of the maxillary teeth may be out of the FOV. Fortunately, this limitation is rarely relevant, and there are workarounds, such as manipulating where the FOV is focusing to capture the necessary data. If I were buying a new machine today, I would aim for something in the 8-by-10-cm or 10-by-10-cm range. 

Is the Price Right? 
As the FOV increases, so does the cost of the machine. Overall, though, the prices of CBCT machines continue to decrease as competition increases. Today’s market offers machines at a range of prices. Generally, you can expect to pay $50,000–$100,000 for a small-to-midsize CBCT machine. If you don’t have the cash, you can finance through traditional banks or supply companies like Henry Schein®, Benco Dental™ and Patterson Dental. I financed mine for over 72 months with monthly payments around $1,300. I was also able to purchase a refurbished machine, which cost $9,000 less than a new one and came with all the same warranties. Some companies may offer bundled deals that include a CBCT machine with other new technology, such as intraoral digital impression scanners, which can make it easier and more affordable to update the technology in your practice all at once. 

When it comes to patient charges, I’ve heard varying philosophies. Some dentists advocate not charging anything, and others advocate crediting the scanning charge back to the patient’s account if they choose to move forward with treatment. I settled on $250 per scan; however, there are many times I’ll do it for free. For example, on an implant case, I’ll only charge for one scan per case. If I need a second scan a few months later, I won’t charge the patient again. I also have a reduced fee for small-FOV scans. In a typical month, I will charge for four to six scans (dental billing codes D–D). This essentially covers my monthly loan payment, while the machine itself allows me to diagnose and treat cases that I otherwise would not be able to accept, leading to increased revenue. In this way, CBCT machines are a great return on investment. 

A brief note about insurance coverage: So far, we have only seen one or two cases where a patient’s dental insurance covered CBCT scans. Our office informs the patient that the cost of the scan will be completely out of pocket, but we will submit it to their insurance as a courtesy. I should also note that we are not currently billing to medical insurance, but there are some offices that do successfully bill to medical. If you’re considering this, I suggest you take a course specifically tailored to medical billing or work with a third party who will take care of the paperwork for you. 

All Software Plays Nice 
Initially, I was very concerned about the CBCT software that accompanies the machine. In fact, one of the main reasons I chose Planmeca over its competitors is that the software looked very intuitive and easy to learn — but that ended up not being important at all. 

The truth is that any software you use regularly will become familiar and easy to use. There will be a learning curve with all software programs. This past year, I had the opportunity to use an Acteon® CBCT machine and software while attending an Implant Pathway course. Although I didn’t master the software in three days, I was certainly capable of navigating through the 3D scans in order to see everything I needed to. 

All CBCT machines export the same raw data in the digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) format, which can then be opened in various viewing and planning software programs. Although Planmeca’s Romexis® software is great, I design all my surgical guides in Blue Sky Bio’s free software, Blue Sky Plan®. Prior to designing my own guides, I would send the DICOM files to a lab that was using coDiagnostiX® from Dental Wings. Other labs may use Anatomage, 3Shape’s Implant Studio or various other software programs. The point is not to be persuaded by the sales representative’s pitch about how great the proprietary software is. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter, and it shouldn’t be a consideration when choosing a machine. 

Support When You Need It 
A major factor in my decision to choose Planmeca was the support I received through Henry Schein. The representatives found a buyer for my existing panoramic machine, handled the installation and staff training, and have been available to support any issues we’ve encountered along the way. When I made my purchase, I was deciding between Vatech and Planmeca machines. Vatech (sold through Benco) did not have a territory representative in my area at the time, and I was concerned about accessing support. I ended up choosing a more expensive machine because this was so important to me. Today, Vatech has great representation and support in my area, and I will strongly consider its technology for my next purchase. 

Narrowing the Field 
So how many machines should you consider? Carestream, Vatech, Planmeca, Dentsply Sirona, i-CAT™, KaVo™, Acteon and Rayscan are all great places to start. My advice is to narrow your options and bring no more than three sales representatives into your office. Much of the information you need can be found online, including FOV options, physical footprint, special features and sometimes even pricing. Narrow it down to three choices, then contact local sales representatives. 

Once you’ve listened to the sales pitches, ask for referrals in your area. Talk to other dentists who have already made the purchase, and see what they think about the machines you’re considering and the company they’re working with. Negotiate cost if possible. Look into warranties, check out financing options, and find out how the company supports its clients. Make a decision, and jump in. You won’t regret it. 

CBCT Machines at a Glance
After determining the specifics you need for your practice, the next step in choosing the perfect machine is identifying what options are available on the market to meet your needs. Here is a list of entry- to mid-level machines to jump-start your search.



David A. Scardella, DMD, is a practicing general dentist and owner of Center for Progressive Dentistry in Duxbury, Massachusetts. To comment on this article, .

To access more news for general dentists, check out the February issue of AGD Impact.

2: Functional and Technical Characteristics of Different Cone

2
Functional and Technical Characteristics of Different Cone Beam Computed Tomography Units

Om P. Kharbanda, BDS, MDS, M Orth RCS, M MEd, FDS RCS Hon, Neeraj Wadhawan, BDS, MDS, Rajiv Balachandran, BDS, MDS, Devasenathipathy Kandasamy, MD, DNB, FRCR, and Sunil D. Kapila, BDS, MS, PhD

Check now

Introduction

By providing three-dimensionally (3D) accurate representation of craniofacial structures, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has opened up new paradigms in diagnosis, treatment planning, and assessment of treatment outcomes in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. This technology also has found applications in many other fields of dentistry, particularly in implant dentistry, imaging of craniofacial trauma, and facial reconstruction; additional applications are being envisaged in endodontics and periodontics. Useful medical applications of CBCT technology include imaging for otorhinolaryngology (ear, nose and throat [ENT]), skull base, radiotherapy planning, intra-operative imaging, angiography, and even mammography (Broderick et al., ; Miracle & Mukherji, a,b; Angelopoulos et al., ).

CBCT, an X-ray–based imaging modality, is sim­ilar to multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT), also referred to as multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), but with far less radiation exposure, reduced cost, and high spatial resolution (Miracle & Mukherji, a). The increasing popularity of CBCT has been facilitated mainly by reductions in radiation and costs resulting from advances in flat panel detector (FPD) technology and processing power of computer hardware supported with advanced software applications.

Most CBCT scanners are intended for use in the imaging of the head and neck region. In , the first CBCT machine for imaging of the maxillofacial region (Mozzo et al., ) was marketed for commercial use (Miracle & Mukherji, a). By , there were five manufacturers supplying CBCT machines. Currently, there are over 20 manufacturers providing over 40 different CBCT units (Molen, ; also see Chapter 6). These units vary in their configuration, hardware, and image reconstruction capabilities, which continue to evolve rapidly. The overall goal of this chapter is to provide the reader with a working knowledge of the capabilities and specifications of the broad array of CBCT scanners that currently are available. More specifically, this chapter compares and contrasts several of the commonly used CBCT units and discusses their relative merits for use in orthodontics. The review of CBCT scanners is preceded by some of the essential information on CT imaging, including a discussion of concepts such as resolution, noise, artifacts, and determinants of radiation exposure.

Characteristics of a CT Image

The principle of CBCT is the same as that of conventional CT except for differences in the type of beam used, configuration of the detectors, and reconstruction algorithms used (Figure 2.1). The use of two-dimensional (2D) FPDs in CBCT enables the scanner to obtain the required information of the region of interest (ROI) in a single rotation or, in some cases, in two rotations, which decreases the exposure time drastically relative to MSCTs. Depending on the equipment and reconstruction algorithm used, the scan arc can be 360° or less. In essence, the machine acquires multiple images of the structure at various angles during a rotation. The total number of images acquired depends on frame rate, speed of rotation, and scan arc. The greater the number of images acquired, the greater the radiation dose and the better the image quality. In contrast to MSCT, X-rays in CBCT are used more efficiently, which decreases the load on the X-ray tubes.

An image from a MSCT or CBCT has three fundamental characteristics or components that are common to all medical imaging techniques: (1) resolution, (2) image noise, and (3) artifacts. These, in turn, are controlled by machine parameters such as peak tube voltage (kVp), milliamperage seconds (mAs), scanning time, field of view (FOV), frame rate, speed of rotation, arc of the trajectory, type of detector, reconstruction algorithm, and radiation scatter. The effects of some of these machine parameters on resolution, image noise, and artifacts are summarized below and in Table 2.1.

Resolution

In medical imaging, resolution typifies the ability of an imaging modality to resolve closely placed objects. Resolution can be classified further into spatial resolution, contrast resolution, and temporal resolution (Mahesh, ).

Spatial Resolution

Spatial resolution is the ability of a scanner to distinguish closely placed objects. The better the resolution, the better the image quality. Spatial resolution is measured in two planes: axial plane (x–y plane) and longitudinal plane (z-axis). The key factors controlling spatial resolution in a CT scan are related mainly to receptor characteristics, focal spot size, detector size, scanner geometry, type of reconstruction filter used, and patient motion.

A major advantage of CBCT is the excellent spatial resolution obtained by the use of FPDs (0.4 mm or lower), which can provide isotropic voxels of high resolution up to 80 µm (0.08 mm) compared with 500– µm voxels in MSCT. The current generation of CBCT scanners have the ability to acquire data at voxel size 0.08–0.4 mm (Angelopoulos et al., ). However, a machine with a smaller voxel size does not translate necessarily into higher clinical resolution. As the voxel size reduces, fewer photons reach each voxel, thus reducing the data acquired by each voxel. Due to tissue- and beam-related differences, adjacent voxels are affected by a different number of photons, resulting in an inhomogeneous image, which leads to loss of contrast and increased image noise.

The resolution power of a scanner is measured clinically by its ability to distinguish closely spaced bars in a CT phantom and is specified as line pairs per centimeter (lp/cm) or per millimeter (lp/mm; Mahesh, ; see also Chapter 8). Current CBCT scanners offer a resolution of as low as 5 lp/mm compared with 2–3 lp/mm for CT scanners (Angelopoulos et al., ).

Modulation transfer function (MTF) is a more objective and quantitative way of determining spatial resolution. It is defined as the ratio of output modulation to input modulation and relates the percentage of actual contrast conferred to a spatial frequency of inserts in a phantom. MTF values range between 0 and 1 and usually are depicted graphically (Figure 2.2). Manufacturers often use 50, 10, 20, and 0% MTF to indicate the frequencies (lp/cm) corresponding to the points on the MTF curves (Mahesh, ). High MTF values in the low frequency range are needed to outline coarse details, while high MTF values in the high frequency range are necessary to portray fine details and sharp edges (Suomalainen et al., ). The data reported by most manufacturers on the MTF values are derived under experimental conditions using phantom heads. However, due to the many variables including the presence of soft tissues, artifacts, and patient motion, the resolving power of scanners under clinical conditions may be lower than that reported by manufacturers.

Temporal Resolution

Temporal resolution is the ability of an imaging system to discriminate several sequentially ac­­quired projection data in time (Miracle & Mukherji, a). A system with higher temporal resolution would have more contrast resolution. Solid state FPDs of CBCT systems have limited temporal resolution ability compared with ceramic detectors of MSCT systems (Orth et al., ), which limits the frame rate and contributes to streak artifacts, thus reducing low contrast detectability (Akpek et al., ).

Contrast Resolution

Contrast resolution, or low contrast detectability (LCD), is the ability of an imaging device to distinguish differences in tissue attenuation or the capability of an imaging system to distinguish objects from the background (Goldman, ; Mahesh, ). A system with high LCD has an increased capability to resolve objects from the background and, therefore, is considered to have high sensitivity. Contrast resolution is an important determinant of image quality. When the contrast resolution decreases, the visualization of tissue differences in the low contrast areas such as soft tissues becomes poor. CT contrast is measured on a scale of − to Hounsfield units (HU). The major factors influencing contrast resolution include tube current, slice thickness, thickness of the region being imaged, detector sensitivity, reconstruction algorithm, and image display (Mahesh, ).

If you are looking for more details, kindly visit Ryder Medical.

CBCT inherently has poor LCD, which results in suboptimal soft tissue imaging. CBCT systems typically have an LCD of 10 HU (Dörfler et al., ) compared with 1 HU resolution of modern MSCT (Miracle & Mukherji, a,b). Despite this caveat, the visualization of high contrast structures such as bones is not affected in CBCT imaging. The prime cause of lower contrast resolution in CBCT is the scatter radiation, which is inherent to the geometry of the CBCT system due to the cone beam’s large z-axis coverage. Older generation scanners employed image intensifier CCD detectors (Kau et al., ) and had limited resolution of grayscale. However, current CBCT systems offer contrast range anywhere between 12- and 16-bit grayscale (Molen, ).

Image Noise

Image noise is the CT equivalent of radiographic mottling and occurs due to a reduced number of photons reaching the receptor plates, a phenomenon called photon starvation (Hounsfield, ; Goldman & Fowlkes, ). This difference of photon density reaching the receptor causes differential contrast in adjacent voxels and graininess of the image, causing loss of image quality. Due to this phenomenon, even radiographically uniform density structures appear to have a slightly different value of Hounsfield units on CT images.

Image noise is affected by the following factors: tube current (mA), scan (rotation) time, slice thickness, peak voltage (kVp), and choice of filter (Goldman, ). For example, smooth filters blur image, which reduces its visual impact, whereas sharp filters enhance noise. For imaging of soft tissues, smooth filters are preferred because noise generally interferes more than image blur. For hard tissue imaging or for imaging structures with edges, sharp filters are preferred because blur interferes more than noise. The quality of output of a scanner at typical noise levels for soft tissue imaging usually is a good test of the scanner’s overall performance.

Artifacts

Artifacts are details seen on an image that do not represent the actual anatomic structures that have been imaged (Goldman, ; Miracle & Mukherji, a,b). Many types of CT image artifacts exist and can be divided broadly as: (1) physics-based; (2) patient-based; and (3) scanner-based (Barrett & Keat, ). The resulting types of artifacts include streaking, shading, rings, and cupping (Scarfe & Farman, ). Artifacts lead to reduction in image quality, reducing its diagnostic value and causing misinterpretation of detail.

Classification of Scanners

From a practical standpoint, the types of scanners currently available can be categorized by the positioning of the patient within the unit and by the FOV of the scanner.

Classification Based on Patient Positioning

The various CBCT scanners grouped on the basis of patient positioning in the scanner are listed below. Examples are shown in Figure 2.3.

  • Supine imaging position: Newtom 3G and Newtom 5G (Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy) and SkyView (MyRay, Cefla Dental Group, Imola, Italy)
  • Sitting imaging position: i-CAT Next Gen­eration (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA), KaVo 3D eXam (KaVo Dental GmbH, Bismarckring, Germany), 3DE Accuitomo (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan), Scanora (Soredex, Orion Corporation, Helsinki, Finland), and Galileos® (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany)
  • Standing imaging position: Newtom VGi (Quantitative Radiology), ProMax (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland), Galileos® (Sirona Dental Systems), and AugeZIO series (Asahi Roentgen, Kyoto, Japan).

Some CBCT units offer the option to scan with the patient in either standing or sitting position; however, none offers the option of both supine and standing positions. A unit with supine imaging position is more useful in hospital settings (e.g., trauma centers) in which patients with maxillofacial trauma or multiple injuries including head injuries are tended. Scanners with supine position also are necessary for planning radiation guidance in oncology and intraoperative planning. For the purposes of orthodontic imaging and other dental applications, CBCT units with sitting or standing features are preferred for ease of accessibility. These units require less space and their configuration decreases the likelihood of claustrophobia to the patient. In addition, due to scan time of several seconds to more than half a minute, the units offering a sitting option may be less prone to movement artifacts than those in which patients have to stand.

Classification Based on Field of View (FOV)

FOV is widely used to classify CBCT machines (Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.4 and Table 2.5). As presented by Scarfe & Farman (), FOVs for craniofical imaging can be classified as follows:

  • Localized imaging utilizes a small FOV of 5 cm or less for scanning anatomy such as of dentoalvelaor structures and the TMJ.
  • Single arch imaging is performed with a FOV of 5–7 cm.
  • Interarch imaging requires a FOV of approximately 7–10 cm.
  • Maxillofacial imaging requires a large FOV of 10–15 cm (mandible to nasion).
  • Craniofacial imaging is used for capturing the entire craniofacial structures and requires an extended FOV of 15 cm or more.

It should be noted that there is no standardized terminology for using the size of FOV for classification of the CBCT units. Extended, large, medium, and small FOV are the terms often used; however, their exact range of FOV is manufacturer defined. For example, a large FOV for one manufacturer may be of similar size to an extended FOV for another manufacturer (Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.4, and Table 2.5). FOV is usually mentioned in a range of dimensions and the volume scanned by the unit may vary from 4 × 4 cm to 25 × 30 cm depending on the FOV settings and the machine chosen. In general, a unit with large or extended FOV that also has capabilities of using smaller FOVs when desired would be preferable for orthodontic applications.

Earlier generation CBCT scanners either had fixed FOV or limited capabilities for adjusting the FOV. Currently, several manufacturers provide multiple FOV settings to incorporate flexibility in use (Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.4, and Table 2.5). Some newer units such as i-CAT Next Generation (NG), i-CAT Precise, and PaX-Reve 3D have fully adjustable FOV heights, contributing to an increase in flexibility of the units. Also, as discussed below and elsewhere (Chapter 3), FOV settings affect image quality and radiation exposure.

Other Key Attributes of CBCT Scanners

Imaging Protocols

Manufacturers currently are expanding protocols to enhance the utility and flexibility of CBCT units; however, all imaging protocols do not yield the same result in terms of radiation exposure and image quality. A clinician may choose to use specific protocols for different applications such as maxillofacial imaging, orthodontics, implant, periapical diagnosis, or endodontics.

FOV select/>

The company is the world’s best CBCT Machine Manufacturer supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue