Gözde IŞIK, Bedriye Güniz BAKSI, Meltem ÖZDEN YÜCE, Ceyda GÜRHAN, Elif ŞENER, Emine ADALI, Banu ÖZVERİ KOYUNCU

Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografinin Yirmi Yaş Dişin TedaviKararına Etkisi

Amaç: Bu tanısal doğruluk çalışmasının amacı, mandibular üçüncü molar (M3) dişler ile mandibular kanal (MK) arasındaki ilişkiyi panoramik radyografi (PR) ve konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) kullanarak incelemek ve KIBT’nin tedavi kararına etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya, MK ile M3 arasında yakın ilişki bulunan 150 hastanın KIBT taramaları dahil edildi. KIBT’de üst üste binme derecesi, Bukko-lingud pozisyon (bukkal, merkez ve lingual) ve fiziksel ilişki (ayrı, temas ve dahil) ölçüldü. PR ve KIBT arasındaki farklar için Fisher’s Exact testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: PR üzerinde, tüm M3’ler MK ile ilişkili görüldü. Ancak, KIBT, M3 köklerinin %10’unun kanalla ilişkisi olmadığını gösterdi. KIBT görüntülerinin değerlendirilmesi gösterdi ki, MK lingual pozisyonundayken (%57,6), diğer pozisyonlar ile karşılaştırıldığında, dahil tip ilişkinin görülme olasılığı belirgin biçimde yüksekti. Sonuç: Üç boyutlu görüntüleme, iki boyutlu panoramik görüntüleme ile karşılaştırıldığında, M3 ve MK arasındaki gerçek ilişkiyi açıklamak için oldukça kullanışlıdır. Ayrıca klinisyen, yüksek riskli hastalarda KIBT görüntülerine dayalı olarak tedavi planını değiştirmeye karar verebilir. Bununla birlikte, KIBT’ye kıyasla düşük radyasyon dozu ile PR, kabul edilebilir bir teşhis yöntemi olarak düşünülebilir.

Effect of Cone-beam Computed Tomography on Treatment Decision of Wisdom Tooth

Objective: This diagnostic accuracy study aimed to evaluate the relationship between mandibular third molars (M3) and mandibular canal (MC) using panoramic radiographs (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to assess the effect of CBCT on treatment decision. Materials and Methods: CBCT scans of 150 patients with close association between MC and M3 on PR were included in the study. The degree of superimposition, Buccolingual position (buccal, central and lingual) and physical relationship (separation, contact and involved) were measured on CBCT images. Fisher’s Exact test was used to evaluate differences between PR and CBCT. Results: All M3 were directly superimposed on the MC on PR; however, CBCT showed separation from the canal in 10% of M3 roots. Evaluation of CBCT images revealed that the probability to observe an involvement was significantly higher when the MC was in the lingual position (57.6%) than in other positions. Conclusion: Three-dimensional imaging is very useful to clarify the true relationship between M3 and MC relative to two-dimensional panoramic images, and the clinician may decide to change the treatment plan based on CBCT images in patients with high risk. Nevertheless, PR can be considered an acceptable diagnostic method with low radiation dose compare with CBCT.

PDF

___

1. Peixoto LR, Gonzaga AK, Melo SL, Pontual, ML, Pontual Ados A, de Melo DP. The effect of two enhancement tools on the assessment of the relationship between third molars and the inferior alveolar canal. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 637-42.
2. Huang CK, Lui MT, Cheng DH. Use of panoramic radiography to predict postsurgical sensory impairment following extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. J Chin Med Assoc 2015; 78: 617-22.
3. Sinha P, Pai A. Assessment of proximity of impacted mandibular third molar roots to the mandibular canal using intra oral periapical radiography and cone-beam computerized tomography: A comparative study. Int Dental Medical J Advanced Research 2015; 1: 1-5.
4. Peker I, Sarikir C, Alkurt MT, Zor ZF. Panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography findings in preoperative examination of impacted mandibular third molars. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 71.
5. Umar G, Obisesan O, Bryant C, Rood JP. Elimination of permanent injuries to the inferior alveolar nerve following surgical intervention of the “high risk” third molar. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 51: 353-7.
6. Selvi F, Dodson TB, Nattestad A, Robertson K, Tolstunov L. Factors that are associated with injury to the inferior alveolar nerve in high-risk patients after removal of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 51: 868-73.
7. Xu GZ, Yang C, Fan XD, Yu CQ, Cai XY, Wang Y, et al. Anatomic relationship between impacted third mandibular molar and the mandibular canal as the risk factor of inferior alveolar nerve injury. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 51: 215-9.
8. Palma-Carrió C, Garcia-Mira B, Larrazabal-Morón CL, PenarrochaDiago M. Radiographic signs associated with inferior alveolar nerve damage following lower third molar extraction. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 15: 886-90.
9. Sedaghatfar M, August MA, Dodson TB. Panaromic radiographic findings as predictors of inferior alveolar nerve exposure following third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 3-7.
10. Jun SH, Kim CH, Ahn JS, Padwa BL, Kwon JJ. Anatomical differences in lower third molars visualized by 2D and 3D X-ray imaging: clinical outcomes after extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 42: 489-96.
11. Dalili Z, Mahjoub P, Sigaroudi AK. Comparison between cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in the assessment of the relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted class C mandibular third molars. Dent Research 2011; 8: 203-10.
12. Mela OA, Tawfik MAM, Mansour NA. Assessment of the relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars using cone beam computed tomography. Mansoura J Dent 2014; 1: 49-55.
13. Nardi C, Talamonti C, Pallotta S, Saletti P, Calistri L, Cordopatri C. Head and neck effective dose and quantitative assessment of image quality: a study to compare cone beam CT and multislice spiral CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017; 46: 20170030.
14. Juodzbalys G, Wang HL. Guidelines for the Identification of the Mandibular Vital Structures: Practical Clinical Applications of Anatomy and Radiological Examination Methods. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2010; 1: 1.
15. Ghaeminia H, Meijer GJ, Soehardi A, Borstlap WA, Mulder J, Vlijmen OJ, 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: 834-9.
16. Petersen LB, Christensen J, Olsen K, Wenzel A. Image and surgery-related costs comparing cone beam CT and panoramic imaging before removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014; 43: 20140001.
17. Matzen LH, Petersen LB, Wenzel A. Radiographic methods used before removal of mandibular third molars among randomly selected general dental clinics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 45: 20150226.
18. Clé-Ovejero A, Sánchez-Torres A, Camps-Font O, Gay-Escoda C, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Does 3-dimensional imaging of the third molar reduce the risk of experiencing inferior alveolar nerve injury owing to extraction? A metaanalysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2017; 148: 575-83.
19. Tachinami H, Tomihara K, Fujiwara K, Nakamori K, Noguchi M. Combined preoperative measurement of three inferior alveolar canal factors using computed tomography predicts the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury during lower third molar extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 1479-83.
20. Wang D, Lin T, Wang Y, Sun C, Yang L, Jiang H, et al. Radiographic features of anatomic relationship between impacted third molar and inferior alveolar canal on coronal CBCT images: risk factors for nerve injury after tooth extraction. Arch Med Sci 2018; 14: 532-40.
21. Hasegawa T, Ri S, Shigeta T, Akashi M, Imai Y, Kakei Y, et al. Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar-a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 42: 843-51.
22. Manor Y, Abir R, Manor A, Kaffe I. Are different imaging methods affecting the treatment decision of extractions of mandibular third molars? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2016; 18: 20160233.
23. Adibi S, Paknahad M. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and osteometric examination in preoperative assessment of the proximity of the mandibular canal to the apices of the teeth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55: 246-50.
24. Korkmaz YT, Kayıpmaz S, Senel FC, Atasoy, KT, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computed tomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery? Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 628-35.
25. Juodzbalys G, Daugela P. Mandibular third molar impaction: review of literature and a proposal of a classification. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2013; 4: 1.
26. Knuttson K, Lysell L, Rohlin M. Postoperative status after partial removal of the mandibular third molar. Swed Dent J 1989; 13: 15-22.
27. Dalle Carbonare M, Zavattini A, Duncan M, Williams M, Moody A. Injury to the inferior alveolar and lingual nerves in successful and failed coronectomies: systematic review. Br J Oral and Maxillofac Surg 2017; 55: 892-8.
28. Ali AS, Benton JA, Yates JM. Risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury with coronectomy vs surgical extraction of mandibular third molars-A comparison of two techniques and review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil 2018; 45: 250-7.
29. Pedersen MH, Bak J, Matzen LH, Hartlev J, Bindslev J, Schou S, et al. Coronectomy of mandibular third molars: a clinical and radiological study of 231 cases with a mean follow-up period of 5,7 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 47: 1596-603.
30. Monaco G, De Santis G, Pulpito G, Gatto MR, Vignudelli E, Marchetti C. What Are the Types and Frequencies of Complications Associated With Mandibular Third Molar Coronectomy? A Follow-Up Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 73: 1246-53.
31. Barcellos BM, Velasques BD, Moura LB, Xavier CB. What Are the Parameters for Reoperation in Mandibular Third Molars Submitted to Coronectomy? A Systematic Review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 77: 1108-15.
32. Leung YY, Cheung LK. Safety of coronectomy versus excision of wisdom teeth: a randomized controlled trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 821‐7.
33. Renton T, Hankins M, Sproate C, McGurk M. A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 43: 7‐12.
34. Maegawa H, Sano K, Kitagawa Y, Ogasawara T, Miyauchi K, Sekine J, et al. Preoperative assessment of the relationship between the mandibular third molar and the mandibular canal by axial computed tomography with coronal and sagittal reconstruction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96: 639- 46.
35. Ohman A, Kivijarvi K, Blomback U, Flygare L. Pre-operative radiographic evaluation of lower third molars with computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 30-5.
36. Matzen LH, Berkhout E. Cone beam CT imaging of the mandibular third molar: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019; 48: 20190039.