3D vs. 2D Imaging – Is the 2D Ceph Still Necessary? (Part 2)

By Matt Hendrickson, U.S. Orthodontic Director

Last week, we touched on the why orthodontists need a 2D cephalometric system in their office and the difference between the different units. This week, I want to discuss the tangible advantages of having a 2D cephalometric unit available in your office.

The key benefits of using true 2D cephalometric imaging, as opposed to cephalometric images reconstructed by a 3D unit include:

  • Elimination of motion artifacts through one-shot acquisition
  • Improved workflow
  • Ability to evaluate treatment response of patients who started treatment with a 2D ceph
  • Decreased legal liability

Continue reading

3D vs. 2D Imaging – Is the 2D Ceph Still Necessary? (Part 1)

By Matt Hendrickson, U.S. Orthodontic Director

3D images are an important tool in today’s orthodontic practice. However, capturing cephalometric images is critical for evaluating treatment in orthodontics. To ensure that you are getting the most reliable radiographs possible—and to streamline your practice workflow—it’s important to choose the right imaging system for your office. While there are a number of units on the market that can reconstruct a cephalometric image from a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan, these can take a toll on your workflow as well as introduce legal complications into your practice. Wise practitioners are implementing CBCT systems that give them the flexibility of both 2D and 3D imaging. Continue reading

Carestream Dental in the News: Dental Economics

As part of my regular column in Dental Economics, I recently had the opportunity to speak with Dr. David Little out of San Antonio, Texas. As an implant dentist, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is very important when it comes to Dr. Little’s treatment planning and evaluation. However, his experience in selecting a unit was a little different than most dental professionals, as he operates a multi-disciplinary practice and had to consider the needs of all specialists during the buying process (spoiler alert: he ended up choosing the CS 9000 3D system).

Read the article in Dental Economics to learn more about how 3D imaging helped Dr. Little with:

  • diagnoses;
  • treatment planning;
  • practice return-on-investment; and
  • case acceptance.

Be sure to check back in June to read my interview with Dr. Mark Setter, a leading periodontist out of Metro Detroit.