Which of the following is incorrect when comparing a cone-beam CT (CBCT) to a conventional CT?

When considering the differences between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and conventional CT, CBCT is often celebrated for its efficiency and cost-effectiveness in certain scenarios, especially in dental and maxillofacial applications.

One of the key benefits of CBCT is that it provides high-resolution images of the bones and dental structures in a shorter scanning time. This efficiency in the scanning process translates into a more patient-friendly experience, allowing for quicker diagnostics and treatment planning.

Additionally, CBCT typically operates at a lower radiation dose compared to conventional CT, making it a safer option for patients, particularly when frequent imaging is necessary.

The financial aspect of CBCT is also noteworthy. While the initial investment for a CBCT machine may be higher for dental practices compared to traditional equipment, the actual cost per scan for the patient is generally lower. This is due to the reduced costs associated with the use of fewer resources and the efficiency of patient throughput.

Therefore, the assertion that CBCT entails a significantly higher financial burden is not typically accurate and is thus considered incorrect when comparing it to conventional CT. The overall advantages in time efficiency, radiation exposure, and cost per scan highlight the growing preference for CBCT in suitable clinical settings.