Radiographic Assessment of Cleft Alveolar Bone Defects: A Preliminary Comparison of Periapical and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images.

bone grafting cleft lip and palate imaging orthodontics

Journal

The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association
ISSN: 1545-1569
Titre abrégé: Cleft Palate Craniofac J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9102566

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 Dec 2023
Historique:
medline: 18 12 2023
pubmed: 18 12 2023
entrez: 18 12 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Accurate radiographic assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) is critical in evaluating SABG outcomes in patients with cleft lip and palate. This study compared Periapical (PA) and Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) grading of SABG outcomes and conducted an analysis of agreement rate between the two imaging modalities. A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent secondary alveolar bone grafting at a single institution. Bone quality of the alveolar cleft site was assessed at three root levels of the adjacent teeth on PA and CBCT images. 48 patients had pre- or post-operative images with both CBCT and PA that were appropriate for comparison. A total of 174 alveolar bone sections (three root levels of adjacent teeth in 58 pairs) were graded on CBCT and PA images. Agreement of CBCT grading with PA grading was 41.3% (72/174) overall. CBCT assessments rated bone quality lower than PA grading in 51.2% (89/174) of sections. CBCT had higher grading than PA image grading in 7.5% (13/174) of sections. The weighted Cohen Kappa value for comparison of CBCT and PA readings was 0.17, indicating a low rate of agreement. Wilcoxon signed rank test demonstrated that the difference between grading on CBCT and PA assessments was statistically significant ( CBCT and PA readings demonstrated an overall low rate of agreement in the assessment of cleft alveolar bone. This investigation suggests that PA radiographs have lower sensitivity in detecting poor bone grafting outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
Accurate radiographic assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG) is critical in evaluating SABG outcomes in patients with cleft lip and palate. This study compared Periapical (PA) and Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) grading of SABG outcomes and conducted an analysis of agreement rate between the two imaging modalities.
METHODS METHODS
A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent secondary alveolar bone grafting at a single institution. Bone quality of the alveolar cleft site was assessed at three root levels of the adjacent teeth on PA and CBCT images.
RESULTS RESULTS
48 patients had pre- or post-operative images with both CBCT and PA that were appropriate for comparison. A total of 174 alveolar bone sections (three root levels of adjacent teeth in 58 pairs) were graded on CBCT and PA images. Agreement of CBCT grading with PA grading was 41.3% (72/174) overall. CBCT assessments rated bone quality lower than PA grading in 51.2% (89/174) of sections. CBCT had higher grading than PA image grading in 7.5% (13/174) of sections. The weighted Cohen Kappa value for comparison of CBCT and PA readings was 0.17, indicating a low rate of agreement. Wilcoxon signed rank test demonstrated that the difference between grading on CBCT and PA assessments was statistically significant (
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
CBCT and PA readings demonstrated an overall low rate of agreement in the assessment of cleft alveolar bone. This investigation suggests that PA radiographs have lower sensitivity in detecting poor bone grafting outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38105594
doi: 10.1177/10556656231220507
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

10556656231220507

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Auteurs

Yiou Guo (Y)

College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Division of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Kiersten C Woodyard De Brito (KC)

College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Division of Pediatric Plastic Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Elizabeth S Gosnell (ES)

College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Division of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Qin Sun (Q)

College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Jue Wang (J)

College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Division of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Classifications MeSH