Üyesi Gökhan Özkan, Özge Dönmez Tarakçı, Üyesi Gülçin Sarı

Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi istek ve gerekçelerinin retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) dental ve mak- sillofasiyal bölgedeki sert dokuları incelemek için günümüz- de yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bilgisayarlı tomografiye (BT) oranla radyasyon dozu daha düşük olmasına rağmen geleneksel dental görüntüleme yöntemlerine kıyasla daha yüksek doza sahiptir. Bu çalışmada Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyo- lojisi A.D.’na gelen KIBT isteklerinin gerekçeleri ile birlikte de- ğerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 1 Ocak 2018 ve 1 Ocak 2019 tarihleri arasında yapılan KIBT istekleri dahil edildi. Yapılan is- teklerin hangi bölümlerden geldiği, hangi anatomik bölgeden alındığı ve ne gerekçe ile istendiği retrospektif olarak incele- nip kaydedildi. Bulgular: Bölümümüze gelen toplam 670 KIBT isteği değer- lendirildi. Bu hastalardan 343’ü (%51) kadın, 327’si (%49) ise erkek hastaydı. Görüntülerin %42'si (290) implant planlaması nedeniyle istenmişti. Tüm isteklerin %43'ü (277) Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi A.D.’na aitti. KIBT görüntülerinin %32'si (214) maksillayı değerlendirmek amacıyla istenmişti. Sonuç: KIBT hem tanı hem de tedavi planlaması için sıklıkla ihtiyaç duyulan bir görüntüleme yöntemidir. Ancak hastala- rın ve personelin radyasyon maruziyetini en aza indirmek için gereksiz tetkiklerden kaçınmak ve istekleri doğru bir şekilde gerekçelendirilmek oldukça önemlidir.

Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography orders with their justifications

Aim: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a widely used imaging modality for examining hard tissues in the den- tal and maxillofacial region. Although the radiation dose is lower than computed tomography (CT), it has a higher dose than conventional dental imaging methods. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the CBCT offers submitted to De- partment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology from any clinic with their justifications. Material and Methods: CBCT offers which was made betwe- en January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019 were included in the study. The department submitted to offer, the region exami- ned and justification of the offer was retrospectively evalua- ted and recorded. Results: A total of 670 CBCT offers were examined. Of the pa- tients, 343 (51%) were female and 327 (49%) were male. For implant surgery, 42% (290) of the orders were made. Most of the orders (43%, 277) belonged to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The orders from maxilla were 32% (214). Conclusion: CBCT is a frequently required imaging mo- dality for both diagnosis and treatment planning. Howe- ver, it is very important to avoid unnecessary investigati- ons and to justify their offers properly in order to minimize radiation exposure of patients and staff.

PDF

___

. Radic J, Patcas R, Stadlinger B, Wiedemeier D, Rücker M, Giacomelli-Hiestand B. Do we need CBCTs for suffi- cient diagnostics?-dentist-related factors. Int J Implant Dent 2018; 4(1): 37.
2. Brown J, Jacobs R, Levring Jäghagen E, Lindh C, Baksi G, Schulze D, et al. Basic training requirements for the use of dental CBCT by dentists: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 43(1): 20130291.
3. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant den- tistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC oral health 2018; 18(1): 88.
4. Valentin J. The 2007 recommendations of the interna- tional commission on radiological protection: Elsevier Ox- ford; 2007.
5. Hol C, Hellen-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Møys- tad A. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73(3): 195-201.
6. Parlak Y, Uysal B, Kıraç FS, Kovan B, Demir M, Ayan A, et al. Radyasyon Güvenliği Kılavuzu: Genel Tanımlar ve Nük- leer Tıp Uygulamalarında Radyasyondan Korunma Kural- ları. Nucl Med Semin 2020;6:71-89
7. Korkmaz Y, Kayıpmaz S, Senel F, Atasoy K, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computed tomography dec- rease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery? Does CBCT dec- rease the risk of IAN injury? International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2017;46(5):628-635.
8. Wolff C, Mücke T, Wagenpfeil S, Kanatas A, Bissinger O Deppe H. Do CBCT scans alter surgical treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative surgical diagnosis using pa- noramic versus cone-beam CT images. J Craniomaxillo- fac Surg 2016; 44(10): 1700-1705.
9. Bornstein MM, Brugger OE, Janner S, Kuchler U, Chap- puis V, Jacobs R, et al. Indications and frequency for the use of cone beam computed tomography for implant tre- atment planning in a specialty clinic. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 1076-1083.
10. Dau M, Edalatpour A, Schulze R, Al-Nawas B, Alshih- ri A, Kämmerer PW. Presurgical evaluation of bony imp- lant sites using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography—influence of medical education. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46(2): 20160081.
11. Bolin A, Eliasson S. Panoramic and tomographic di- mensional determinations for maxillary osseointegrated implants. Comparison of the morphologic information potential of two and three dimensional radiographic sys- tems. Swed Dent J 1995; 19(1-2): 65-71.
12. Frei C, Buser D, Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross‐section imaging of the posterior mandible for treat- ment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15(4): 490-497.
13. Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U, Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19(1): 81-85.
14. Commission E. Cone Beam CT for dental and maxil- lofacial radiology: evidence-based guidelines. Radiation Protection Publication. 2012; 172.
15. Lai CS, Suter VG, Katsaros C, Bornstein MM. Localiza- tion of impacted maxillary canines and root resorption of neighbouring teeth: a study assessing the diagnostic va- lue of panoramic radiographs in two groups of observers. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36(4): 450-456.
16. Santos AA, Yamamoto-Silva FP, Torres EM, Vallada- res-Neto J, Figueiredo PTS, Leite AF, et al. Contribution of cone-beam computed tomography in the decision of surgical management for bone lesions of the maxillofacial region. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 47(1): 87-92.
17. Hayashi T, Arai Y, Chikui T, Hayashi-Sakai S, Honda K, Indo H, et al. Clinical guidelines for dental cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol 2018; 34(2): 89-104.
18. Hermann L, Wenzel A, Schropp L, Matzen LH. Impact of CBCT on treatment decision related to surgical remo- val of impacted maxillary third molars: does CBCT chan- ge the surgical approach? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48(8): 20190209.
19. Peker I, Sarikir C, Alkurt MT, Zor ZF. Panoramic radi- ography and cone-beam computed tomography findings in preoperative examination of impacted mandibular third molars. BMC oral health 2014; 14(1): 71.
20. Ghaeminia H, Meijer G, Soehardi A, Borstlap W, Mul- der J, Vlijmen O, et al. The use of cone beam CT for the removal of wisdom teeth changes the surgical approach compared with panoramic radiography: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 40(8): 834-839.
21. Allison JR, Garlington G. The value of cone beam computed tomography in the management of dentige- rous cysts–a review and case report. Dent Update 2017; 44(3): 182-188.
22. Lukat T, Wong J, Lam E. Small field of view cone beam CT temporomandibular joint imaging dosimetry. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42(10): 20130082.
23. Walliczek-Dworschak U, Diogo I, Strack L, Mandapat- hil M, Teymoortash A, Werner J, et al. Indications of cone beam CT in head and neck imaging in children. Acta Otor- hinolaryngol Ital 2017; 37(4): 270.
24. Iskanderani D, Nilsson M, Alstergren P, Hellén-Halme K. Dose distributions in adult and child head phantoms for panoramic and cone beam computed tomography imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2020 Feb. DOI: 10.1016/j. oooo.2020.01.003.
25. İşman Ö, Yılmaz HH, Aktan AM, Yilmaz B. Indications for cone beam computed tomography in children and young patients in a Turkish subpopulation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017; 27(3): 183-190.
26. Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B, et al. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol 2018; 48(3): 308-316.
27. Patel S, Brown J, Semper M, Abella F, Mannocci F. European Society of Endodontology position statement: use of cone beam computed tomography in Endodonti- cs: European Society of Endodontology (ESE) developed by. Int Endod J 2019; 52(12): 1675-1678.
28. Garib DG, Calil LR, Leal CR, Janson G. Is there a con- sensus for CBCT use in Orthodontics? Dental Press J Ort- hod 2014; 19(5): 136-149.