Cone Beam: What's peoples feeling on the liability issue of cone beam?

Tue, 09/08/2009 - 09:00 — Dr Chace Heatly

I have seen much in the lit these days on the liability of cone beams. While they made our treatment planning easier they also open us up to some liability issues. Especially when you consider that one can easily miss pathology when you dont know what you are looking at. I myself have started sending my cone beams to a dental radiologist for an official reading so nothing is missed. Whats peoples opinions?

Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology

Sun, 12/05/2010 - 22:47 — Richard Hughes DDS

Cone Beam Law Suits

The reps want the com payment. They are full of BS as per every doc using or having a CBCT. Stop and think.........How many Docs have one. I only use one 2 to 3 times per year. I palpate, use PAs, sometimes take bone soundings, take study models and fabricate an accurate guide and retake radiographs w/ 5mm. ball bearings to determine depth. I also use drill stoppers from AB Dental to control the depth of the osteotomy. One of the last things you want to do is listen to a rep and take it as from the "Burning Bush." Get educated and find a mentor. We all started as a beginner. Remember the rep is a salesman, just like a car salesman.

Sat, 12/18/2010 - 07:16 — enlittedo

Cone beam CT scans: Changed my practice

Richard while I agree with you that you dont need a cone beam, CBCT has changed my practice for the better.

I see alot more issues that I didnt see before. I avoided complications by using the CBCT.

Not seeing the issues doesnt mean they are not there. Sometimes being lucky doesnt mean being good.

I dont want to count on luck.

Ted

Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:05 — Smith

Cone Beam Lawsuits coming?

I am a Gen Den who just started doing implants in my practice. I just do simple cases like mandibular molars with wide ridges. My dental reps keep trying to push CBCT scanners on me. They tell me that if I do not get one, I will be seen as "behind the times" and that I could potentially be sued in the future for not having equipment that is the "new standard of care."

Now there is this NY Times article and it looks like people could get sued for using CBCT on unnecessary things such as caries. I am confused. People are telling me I can get sued for not having CBCT and others are saying I can get sued for using CBCT.

CBCT's are not cheap. I am not going to spend $80 grand until this situation settles down. I have lived this long without a CBCT, so waiting a bit longer is ok with me.

What are others thinking?

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 15:16 — rolpher

cone beam

I place 100-150 implants annually. I use cone beam on one to two case per year. I find them overwhelming and do not provide me a better treatment plan. I shoot from the hip 99% of the time and have great success. I find the implant system has a lot to do with the outcome and proper contingency planning. 1000+ implants placed and no parathesia.

Sat, 12/04/2010 - 07:17 — shazlovely

Cone Beam NY times article: Radiation Concerns: Opinions needed

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/us/23scan.html?_r=1

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/radiation-in-the-dentist-chair/

I have had a number of patients show concern about this issue since the NY times article came out. What are your opinions on the liability with Cone beam CT and radiation?

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 09:38 — Tom House DDS MD

Cone Beam Liability: Get a limited field of view

You have two options to limit liability. Get it read by a radiologist or get a limited field of view machine.

Fri, 02/26/2010 - 09:01 — Dean Spivey

I have a ICAT and my office: No liability in my mind

I been using an ICAT for years. There is no liability is long as you manage it meaning:

1) know what you are looking at
2) Send all you scans to an oral radiologist for an official report.

I cant tell you how important #2 is, I have caught pathology that would have been missed if I didnt send it for review by a radiologist. In general its cheap, use the service.

Wed, 01/06/2010 - 05:15 — Dr90210