Marginal bone loss and resorption of second molars related to maxillary third molars in panoramic images compared with CBCT.
cone-beam computed tomography
maxilla
molar
pathology
third
Journal
Dento maxillo facial radiology
ISSN: 0250-832X
Titre abrégé: Dentomaxillofac Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7609576
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
18
1
2019
medline:
2
7
2019
entrez:
18
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Compare findings among observers in panoramic images (PAN) and cone beam CT (CBCT); and assess findings in PAN as indicators for marginal bone loss and resorption observed in CBCT. 120 impacted maxillary third molars with PAN and CBCT were included. Four observers assessed morphological features: (1) tooth angulation; (2) number of roots; (3) bony impaction (yes/no) and pathology; (4) marginal bone level at the second molar (normal/>3 mm = bone loss); (5) resorption in the second molar (no/superficial/< half way through the dentin/≥ half way through the dentin/involving the pulp); (6) size of follicular space (normal/> 4 mm(cyst)). Percentage accordance and κ statistics described observer variation in PAN and CBCT. Logistic regression analyses tested findings in PAN as indicators for marginal bone loss or resorption observed in CBCT. κ values were fair and interobserver accordance was marginally higher in CBCT than PAN. Agreement between PAN and CBCT was 81-88% for marginal bone loss and 68-81% for resorption. Severe resorption was more often observed in CBCT. Mesio-angulated third molars and marginal bone loss interpreted in PAN significantly indicated marginal bone loss observed in CBCT (odds ration 17-34; In general, there was a fair agreement for marginal bone loss between PAN and CBCT, and PAN could significantly predict bone loss observed in CBCT. However, presence of resorption observed in CBCT could not be determined from PAN, and more severe resorption was observed in CBCT. CBCT is indicated if resorption in the second molar needs to be assessed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30652501
doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20180313
pmc: PMC6592588
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
20180313Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001 Feb;30(1):54-7
pubmed: 11289622
Med Decis Making. 1991 Apr-Jun;11(2):88-94
pubmed: 1907710
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Oct;41(10):1270-4
pubmed: 22464852
Imaging Sci Dent. 2012 Dec;42(4):219-24
pubmed: 23301207
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(10):20130228
pubmed: 24052253
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Aug;72(8):1444-55
pubmed: 24856956
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(6):20140001
pubmed: 24922557
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140189
pubmed: 25135317
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Mar;73(3):379-86
pubmed: 25577457
Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 Sep-Oct;19(5):45-53
pubmed: 25715716
Swiss Dent J. 2015;125(5):555-71
pubmed: 26169494
Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015 Jul-Aug;5(4):229-34
pubmed: 26229709
Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Dec;45(4):233-40
pubmed: 26730371
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017 Jan;46(1):20160330
pubmed: 27681861
J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Aug;148(8):575-583
pubmed: 28532570
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Dec;46(12):1635-1640
pubmed: 28822678
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017 Nov;124(5):506-516
pubmed: 28867462
Imaging Sci Dent. 2017 Sep;47(3):149-155
pubmed: 28989897