Pelin TÜFENKÇİ, Murat İÇEN, Çiğdem ŞEKER, Gediz GEDUK, Kaan ORHAN

Furkasyon perforasyonunda kullanılan materyallerin görüntüleme cihazlarındaki görünürlüklerinin değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Furkasyon perforasyonunda kullanılan materyallerin post operatif değerlendirilebilmesi için çeşitli radyografik tekniklerden faydalanılmaktadır. Klinik şartlarda kolay erişilebilir olması ve hastanın maruz kaldığı radyasyon dozunun ileri görüntüleme yöntemlerine göre düşük olması nedeniyle intraoral görüntülemelere başvurulmaktadır. 2 boyutlu radyografilerle belirlenemeyen durumlarda ise süperpozisyonların olmaması ve multiplanar görüntülemeye olanak vermesi nedeniyle konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografiler daha yararlı olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı furkasyon perforasyonlarında kullanılan materyallerin radyografideki görünürlüklerinin diagnostik açıdan kabul edilebilirliğini ve bu malzemelerin görüntülenmesinde hangi cihazın daha etkili olduğunu değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma kriterlerine uygun 112 alt molar diş seçilmiştir. Perforasyon bölgesini tamir etmek için dişlere ayrı ayrı Biodentine, BioAggregate, MTA ve Endosequence uygulandı. Periapikal radyografiler fosfor plaklarla Soredex Digora Optime ile, ve Planmeca Dixi 3 CCD kullanılarak, Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT) görüntüleri ise Morita Veraviewepocs 3D R100 kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Bir endodontist ve iki ağız, diş ve çene radyolojisi uzmanı KIBT görüntülerini ve periapikal radyografi görüntülerini değerlendirmiştir. Dişler tamir malzemelerinin furkal perforasyonlarda görünürlüğü açısından rastgele değerlendirmeye alınmış ve skorlanmıştır. Bulgular: MTA ve Biodentine düşük görüntü netliği sunarken Bioaggregate ve Endosequence’ın yüksek görüntü netliğine sahip olduğu görüldü. Morita Veraviewepocs 3D R100 en yüksek netliği gösterirken Soredex Digora Optime ve Planmeca Dixi 3 cihazları arasında fark gözlenmemiştir. Sonuç: Furkasyon perforasyonlarının tedavisinde kullanılan materyallerin postoperatif takibinde, KIBT'nin kullanılmasını ve en iyi görüntü netliğini sağlayan Bioagregate ve Endosequence kullanmanılması önerilebilir bir sonuç olarak bulunmuştur.

Evaluation of the visibility of the materials used in furcation perforation in imaging devices

Background: Variable radiographic techniques are used for postoperative evaluation of the materials used in furcation perforation. Since it is easily accessible clinically and the radiation dose which the patient is exposed to, is lower than the advanced imaging methods, intraoral imaging is applied. In cases that cannot be determined by 2D radiographs, cone beam computed tomography is more relevant because of the absence of superimpositions and allowing for multiplanar imaging. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic acceptability of the radiographic visibility of the materials used in furcation perforations and to find out which radiographic technique was efficient to view the materials.Methods: One hundred and twelve lower molar teeth were used according to the study criteria. Biodentin, BioAggregate, MTA and Endosequence were applied individually to the teeth, in order to repair the perforation zone. Periapical radiographs were obtained with Soredex Digora Optime with photostimulated phosphor plates. Other radiographic images were obtained using Planmeca Dixi 3 CCD, while CBCT images were obtained using Morita Veraviewepocs 3D R100. An endodontist and two dentomaxillofacial radiology specialists evaluated the images of CBCT and periapical radiographs. Teeth were evaluated randomly for the visibility of the repair materials in furcal perforations and scored.Results: MTA and Biodentine presented low image clarity while Bioaggregate and Endosequence had high image clarity. Morita Veraviewepocs 3D R100 depicted the highest sharpness, but no difference was observed between Soredex Digora Optime and Planmeca Dixi 3 devices.Conclusion: In the postoperative follow-up of the materials used in the treatment of furcation perforations, the usage of CBCT and the use of Bioagregate and Endosequence, which provide the best image clarity, has been suggested.

PDF

___

1. Hamad HA, Tordik PA, Mcclanahan SB. Furcation Perforation Repair Comparing Gray And White MTA: A Dye Extraction Study. J Endod. 2006 Apr;32(4):337-40.
2. Vanni JR, Della-Bona A, Figueiredo JA, Pedro G, Voss D, Kopper PM. Radiographic Evaluation Of Furcal Perforations Sealed With Different Materials in Dogs’ Teeth. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19: 421-425.
3. Hashem AA, Hassanien EE. Proroot MTA, MTA-Angelus And IRM To Repair Large Furcation Perforations: Sealability Study. J Endod. 2008;34:59-61.
4. Fuss Z, Trope M. Root Perforations: Classification And Treatment Choices Based On Prognostic Factors. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:255-264.
5. Sinai IH. Endodontic Perforations: Their Prognosis And Treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;95:90–5.
6. Imura N, Otani SM, Hata G, Toda T, Zuolo ML. Sealing Ability Of Composite Resin Placed Over Calcium Hydroxide And Calcium Sulphate Plugs In The Repair Of Furcation Perforations in Mandibular Molars: A Study In Vitro. Int Endod J. 1998 Mar;31(2):79-84
7. Raghavendra SS, Jadhav GR, Gathani KM, Kotadia P. Bioceramics İn Endodontics – A Review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017; 51: S128–S137.
8. Kamburoglu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Eren H, Yüksel S, Paksoy CS. Assessment Of Buccal Marginal Alveolar Peri-Implant And Periodontal Defects Using A CBCT System With And Without The Application Of Metal Artifact Reduction Mode. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42:20130176.
9. Aljehani YA. Diagnostic Applications Of Cone-Beam CT For Periodontal Diseases. Int J Dent. 2014;2014:865079.10.
10. Petersson A, Axelsson S, Davidson T, et al. Radiological Diagnosis Of Periapical Bone Tissue Lesions In Endodontics: A Systematic Review. Int Endod J 2012;45:783–801.
11. Braun X, Ritter L, Jervøe-Storm PM, Frentzen M. Diagnostic Accuracy Of CBCT For Periodontal Lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1229-1236.
12. du Bois A. Kardachi B, Bartold P. Is There A Role For The Use Of Volumetric Cone Beam Computed Tomography In Periodontics? Aust Dent J. 2012;57:103-108.
13. Küçükeşmen HC, Küçükeşmen Ç. Sınıf-V Hibrid Kompozit Rezin Restorasyonların Mikrosızıntı Düzeylerinin Karşılaştırılması. Balıkesir Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 1.3: 110-116.Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 2092-8.
14. Koçak MM, Er Ö, Darendeliler Yaman S. Furkasyon Perforasyonu Tedavisinde Mineral Trioksitaggregat Kullanımı; Olgu Bildirimi. Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2006;1:91-94
15. Arens DE, Torabinejad M. Repair Of Furcal Perforations With Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: Two Case Reports. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1996; 82: 84-8
16. Rotstein I, Simon JH. Endodontic-Periodontal interrelationships. Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner JC, editors. Endodontics 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2008. pp. 638–59.
17. Ford TR, Torabinejad M, McKendry DJ, Hong CU, Kariyawasam SP. Use Of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate For Repair Of Furcal Perforations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995 Jun;79(6):756-63.
18. Gençoğlu N, Yıldırım T. Furkasyon Perforasyonlarında Kullanılan MTA, Super-EBA ve Amalgamın Mikrosızıntısının İncelenmesi. Atatürk Üniv.Diş Hek.Fak.Derg. 2003-2004;13(3),14(1):7-12.
19. Jeevani E, Jayaprakash T, Bolla N, Vemuri S, Sunil CR, Kalluru RS. Evaluation Of Sealing Ability Of MM-MTA, Endosequence, And Biodentine As Furcation Repair Materials: UV Spectrophotometric Analysis. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:340-3
20. Tagger M, Katz A. A Standard For Radiopacity Of Root-End (Retrograde) Filling Materials Is Urgently Needed. International Endodontic Journal, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 260–264, 2004
21. Bender IB, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone: I. Journal of endodontics 2003: 702-706
22. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Leles CR, Azevedo B, Azevedo JR. Accuracy Of Cone Beam Computed Tomography And Panoramic And Periapical Radiography For Detection Of Apical Periodontitis. J. Endod. 2008;34(3):273-9
23. SEDENTEXCT European Commission, Radiation Protection N 172: Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. A report prepared by the SEDENTECT Project, 2011.
24. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: Recognition And Avoidance. Radiographic 2004;24:1679-91
25. Tanalp J, Karapınar M, Dölekoğlu S, Kayahan MB. Comparison of the Radiopacities of Different Root-End Filling and Repair Materials. Hindawi Publishing Corporation The Scientific World Journal Volume 2013, Article ID 594950, 4 pages
26. Tanomaru-Filho M, da Silva GF, Duarte MAH, Goncalves M, Tanomaru JMG, Radiopacity Evaluation Of Root-End Filling Materials By Digitization Of Images. Journal of Applied Oral Science 16.6 (2008): 376-379.
27. Helvacioglu Yigit D., Demirturk Kocasarac H, Bechara B, Noujeim M. Evaluation and Reduction of Artifacts Generated by 4 Different Root-end Filling Materials by Using Multiple Cone-beam Computed Tomography Imaging Settings. J Endod. 2016 Feb;42(2):307-14.
28. Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Accuracy Of Cone Beam Dental CT, Periapical Digital And Conventional Film Radiography For The Detection Of Periapical Lesions. An Ex Vivo Study in Pig Jaws. Clin Oral Invest 2007 11:101–106
29. Adel M, Tofangchiha M, Yeganeh LA, Javadi A, Khojasteh AA, Majd NM. Diagnostic Accuracy Of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography And Conventional Periapical Radiography In Detecting Strip Root Perforations. J Int Oral Health. 2016;8(1):75-9
30. Eskandarloo A, Saati S, Ardakani MP, Jamalpour M, Gholi Mezerji NM, Akheshteh V. Diagnostic Accuracy of Three Cone Beam Computed Tomography Systems and Periapical Radiography for Detection of Fenestration Around Dental Implants. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):376-381.
31. Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Visualisation Of The Mandibular Canal By Different Radiographic Techniques. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1992;3(2):90–97.
32. Kamburoğlu K, Yeta EN, Yılmaz F. An ex vivo comparison of diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in the detection of furcal perforations. Journal of endodontics. 2015;41(5):696-702.