Hande SAĞLAM, Esra YEŞİLOVA, İBRAHİM ŞEVKİ BAYRAKDAR

Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesindeki Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT) İncelemesi İstem Nedenlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyolojisi Anabilim Dalı Radyoloji kliniğinde çekilmiş Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT)’lerin istem nedenlerinin belirlenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyolojisi arşivinden rastgele seçilen 843 KIBT’ın istem nedenleri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hasta bilgi ve yönetim sistemi üzerinde KIBT istemleri için hekimler tarafından kaydedilen Ön tanı/İstem gerekçelerine göre nedenler sınıflandırıldı ve frekansları hesaplandı. Bulgular: Hastaların 403’ü erkek ve 440’ı kadındı. Yaş aralıkları 6-83 (ortalama 29.41±17.212) idi. En sık istem nedeni olan kemik içi patolojiler 228 vaka ile %27 oranındaydı. Ortodontik sebeplerle istenen 185 (%21,9) ve gömülü dişler için istenen 169 (%20) vaka ikinci ve üçüncü grupları oluşturuyordu. Maksillofasiyal travma nedeniyle KIBT istenen dört vaka %0,5 oranla en alt sıradaydı. Sonuç: KIBT’ın uygun maliyeti, düşük radyasyon dozuyla üç boyutlu olarak görüntü oluşturması gibi özellikleri sayesinde diş hekimliği pratiğinde kullanımı yaygınlaşmış olup farklı endikasyonlar için kullanımı tercih edilmektedir. Çalışmamız özellikle kemik içi patolojilerin değerlendirilebilmesi ve ortodontik analiz için KIBT ihtiyacının arttığını ortaya koymuştur. Buna karşılık KIBT kullanımında ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) prensibi göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

The Evaluation of Referral of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Examination in Eskisehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Dentistry

Background: The aim of the study is to determine the reasons for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) demands in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department of Eskişehir Osmangazi University. Methods: Reasons of request for 843 CBCTs randomly selected from Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology archives were evaluated retrospectively. The reasons were classified according to the pre-diagnosis / request reasons recorded by the physicians for the CBCT requests on the patient information and management system, and their frequencies were calculated. Results: The age range of 403 male and 440 female patients was 6.83 (mean 29.41±17.212). The most common request was for pathologies with 228 cases as 27%. The demands for orthodontics and impacted teeth were in the second and third order 185 cases (21.9%) and 169 cases (20%) respectively. Four cases with maxillofacial trauma were in the bottom of the list with 0.5%. Conclusion: Thanks to its features such as affordable cost, low radiation dose and three-dimensional image creation, CBCT has become widespread in dental practice and is preferred for different purposes. Our study revealed that the need for CBCT especially for the evaluation of intraosseous pathologies and orthodontic analysis has increased. On the other hand, ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principles should be taken into consideration in the use of CBCT and the CBCT request should be avoided when not necessary.

PDF

___

1. Orhan K. Diş Hekimliğinde Konik Işınlı Komputerize Tomografinin (KIKT) Yeri ve Önemi. Yeditepe J Dent. 2012;3(1):6-17.

2. Venkatesh E, Elluru SV. Cone beam computed tomography: basics and applications in dentistry. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry. 2017;51(3 Suppl 1):S102-s121.

3. Angelopoulos C, Scarfe WC, Farman AG. A comparison of maxillofacial CBCT and medical CT. Atlas of the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 2012;20(1):1-17.

4. Uysal S. Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Dental Sciences Special Topics. 2010;1(2):36-43.

5. Warhekar S, Nagarajappa S, Dasar PL, et al. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography and reasons for referral by dental practitioners in indore city (m.p). Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR. 2015;9(2):Zc21-24.

6. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dental clinics of North America. 2008;52(4):707-730, v.

7. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. Journal (Canadian Dental Association). 2006;72(1):75-80.

8. Ertaş ET, Kalabalık F. Bir Türk Örneklem Grubunda Dental Volumetrik Tomografi Endikasyonları. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2014;24(2).

9. Shukla S, Chug A, Afrashtehfar KI. Role of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Diagnosis and Treatment Planning in Dentistry: An Update. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. 2017;7(Suppl 3):S125-s136.

10.Posadzy M, Desimpel J, Vanhoenacker F. Cone beam CT of the musculoskeletal system: clinical applications. Insights into imaging. 2018;9(1):35-45.

11.Brown J, Jacobs R, Levring Jaghagen E, et al. Basic training requirements for the use of dental CBCT by dentists: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology. Dento maxillo facial radiology. 2014;43(1):20130291.

12.Akarslan Z, Peker İ. Bir diş hekimliği fakültesindeki konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi incelemesi istenme nedenleri. Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2015;32(1):1- 6.

13.Büyük SK, Ramoğlu Sİ. Ortodontik Teşhiste Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi (Journal of Health Sciences). 2011;20(3):227-234.

14.Scarfe WC, Azevedo B, Toghyani S, Farman AG. Cone Beam Computed Tomographic imaging in orthodontics. Australian dental journal. 2017;62 Suppl 1:33-50.

15.Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. International journal of dentistry. 2009;2009:634567.

16.Bayrakdar İŞ, Yılmaz AB, Çağlayan F, Ertaş Ü, Gündoğdu C. Çenelerde görülen intraosseöz lezyonların klinik ve radyolojik bulgularının değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2015;25(1):281-288.

17.Hakan E, İnceoğlu B, Büyükkoçak Bk, İrem E, Orhan K. Evaluation Of Referral Of Cone-Beam Ct Investigations At A Dentomaxillofacial Radiology Clinic Of University Hospital. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi.1-1.

18.van Vlijmen OJ, Maal T, Berge SJ, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2010;39(2):156-160.

19.Olszewski R, Frison L, Schoenarts N, et al. Reproducibility of three-dimensional posterior cranial base angles using low-dose computed tomography. Clinical oral investigations. 2017;21(8):2407-2414.

20.Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y, Faerman M, Casap N, Hiller N. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. The Angle orthodontist. 2011;81(1):11-16.

21.Li N, Hu B, Mi F, Song J. Preliminary evaluation of cone beam computed tomography in threedimensional cephalometry for clinical application. Experimental and therapeutic medicine. 2017;13(5):2451-2455.

22.Garib DG, Calil LR, Leal CR, Janson G. Is there a consensus for CBCT use in Orthodontics? Dental press journal of orthodontics. 2014;19(5):136-149.

23.Radiology AAoOaM. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. [corrected]. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2013;116(2):238-257.

24.Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2008;139(9):1237-1243.

25.Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dento maxillo facial radiology. 2006;35(4):219-226.

26.Loubele M, Jacobs R, Maes F, et al. Image quality vs radiation dose of four cone beam computed tomography scanners. Dento maxillo facial radiology. 2008;37(6):309-318.

27.Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2008;133(5):640.e641-645.

28.Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. European Journal of Radiology. 2012;81(2):267-271.

29.Hirsch E, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Silva MA. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology. 2008;37(5):268-273.