The aim of this study was to assess the visibility of the MC in different regions on CBCT cross-sectional images. CBCT cross-sectional images of 58 patients (116 hemi-mandibles) were analyzed, and the visibility of the MC in different regions was assessed. The MC was clearly visible in 53% of the hemi-mandibles. Difficult and very difficult visualizations were registered in 25% and 22% of the hemi-mandibles, respectively. The visibility of the MC on distal regions was superior when compared to regions closer to the mental foramen. No differences were found between edentulous and tooth-bearing areas. The MC presents an overall satisfactory visibility on CBCT cross-sectional images in most cases. However, the discrimination of the canal from its surrounds becomes less obvious towards the mental foramen region when cross-sectional images are individually analyzed.

Objectives: To investigate the effect of tube current-exposure time (mAs) reduction on clinical and technical image quality for different CBCT scanners, and to determine preliminary minimally acceptable values for the mAs and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in CBCT. Methods: A polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom and an anthropomorphic skull phantom,, containing a human skeleton embedded in polyurethane, were scanned using four CBCT devices, including seven exposure protocols. For all protocols, the mAs was varied within the selectable range. Using the PMMA phantom, the CNRAIR was measured and corrected for voxel size. Eight axial slices and one coronal slice showing various anatomical landmarks were selected for each CBCT scan of the skull phantom. The slices were presented to six dentomaxillofacial radiologists, providing scores for various anatomical and diagnostic parameters. Results: A hyperbolic relationship was seen between CNRAIR and mAs Similarly, a gradual reduction in clinical image quality was seen at lower mAs values; however, for several protocols, image quality remained acceptable for a moderate or large mAs reduction compared with the standard exposure setting, depending on the clinical application. The relationship between mAs, CNRAIR and observer scores was different for each CBCT device. Minimally acceptable values for mAs were between 9 and 70, depending on the criterion and clinical application. Conclusions: Although noise increased at a lower mAs, clinical image quality often remained acceptable at exposure levels below the manufacturer's recommended setting, for certain patient groups. Currently, it is not possible to determine minimally acceptable values for image quality that are applicable to multiple CBCT models.