Journals / 7tepe Klinik / 2022 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography orders with their justifications

Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi istek ve gerekçelerinin retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi

Pages
24–28
Publication Date
2022-09-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Howe- ver, it is very important to avoid unnecessary investigati- ons and to justify their offers properly in order to minimize radiation exposure of patients and staff.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a widely used imaging modality for examining hard tissues in the den- tal and maxillofacial region.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: CBCT offers which was made betwe- en January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019 were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Howe- ver, it is very important to avoid unnecessary investigati- ons and to justify their offers properly in order to minimize radiation exposure of patients and staff.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a widely used imaging modality for examining hard tissues in the den- tal and maxillofacial region. Although the radiation dose is lower than computed tomography (CT), it has a higher dose than conventional dental imaging methods. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the CBCT offers submitted to De- partment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology from any clinic with their justifications. Material and Methods: CBCT offers which was made betwe- en January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019 were included in the study. The department submitted to offer, the region exami- ned and justification of the offer was retrospectively evalua- ted and recorded. Results: A total of 670 CBCT offers were examined. Of the pa- tients, 343 (51%) were female and 327 (49%) were male. For implant surgery, 42% (290) of the orders were made. Most of the orders (43%, 277) belonged to Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The orders from maxilla were 32% (214). Conclusion: CBCT is a frequently required imaging mo- dality for both diagnosis and treatment planning. Howe- ver, it is very important to avoid unnecessary investigati- ons and to justify their offers properly in order to minimize radiation exposure of patients and staff.

Özet

Amaç: Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) dental ve mak- sillofasiyal bölgedeki sert dokuları incelemek için günümüz- de yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bilgisayarlı tomografiye (BT) oranla radyasyon dozu daha düşük olmasına rağmen geleneksel dental görüntüleme yöntemlerine kıyasla daha yüksek doza sahiptir. Bu çalışmada Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyo- lojisi A.D.’na gelen KIBT isteklerinin gerekçeleri ile birlikte de- ğerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 1 Ocak 2018 ve 1 Ocak 2019 tarihleri arasında yapılan KIBT istekleri dahil edildi. Yapılan is- teklerin hangi bölümlerden geldiği, hangi anatomik bölgeden alındığı ve ne gerekçe ile istendiği retrospektif olarak incele- nip kaydedildi. Bulgular: Bölümümüze gelen toplam 670 KIBT isteği değer- lendirildi. Bu hastalardan 343’ü (%51) kadın, 327’si (%49) ise erkek hastaydı. Görüntülerin %42'si (290) implant planlaması nedeniyle istenmişti. Tüm isteklerin %43'ü (277) Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi A.D.’na aitti. KIBT görüntülerinin %32'si (214) maksillayı değerlendirmek amacıyla istenmişti. Sonuç: KIBT hem tanı hem de tedavi planlaması için sıklıkla ihtiyaç duyulan bir görüntüleme yöntemidir. Ancak hastala- rın ve personelin radyasyon maruziyetini en aza indirmek için gereksiz tetkiklerden kaçınmak ve istekleri doğru bir şekilde gerekçelendirilmek oldukça önemlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özkan, Ü. G., Tarakçı, Ö. D., Sarı, Ü. G. (2022). Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography orders with their justifications. 7tepe Klinik, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2, 24–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/426026

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. . Radic J, Patcas R, Stadlinger B, Wiedemeier D, Rücker M, Giacomelli-Hiestand B. Do we need CBCTs for suffi- cient diagnostics?-dentist-related factors. Int J Implant Dent 2018
  2. 4(1): 37. 2. Brown J, Jacobs R, Levring Jäghagen E, Lindh C, Baksi G, Schulze D, et al. Basic training requirements for the use of dental CBCT by dentists: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013
  3. 43(1): 20130291. 3. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant den- tistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC oral health 2018
  4. 18(1): 88. 4. Valentin J. The 2007 recommendations of the interna- tional commission on radiological protection: Elsevier Ox- ford
  5. Hol C, Hellen-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Møys- tad A. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey. Acta Odontol Scand 2015
  6. 73(3): 195-201. 6. Parlak Y, Uysal B, Kıraç FS, Kovan B, Demir M, Ayan A, et al. Radyasyon Güvenliği Kılavuzu: Genel Tanımlar ve Nük- leer Tıp Uygulamalarında Radyasyondan Korunma Kural- ları. Nucl Med Semin 2020
  7. 89 7. Korkmaz Y, Kayıpmaz S, Senel F, Atasoy K, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computed tomography dec- rease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery? Does CBCT dec- rease the risk of IAN injury? International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2017
  8. 46(5):628-635. 8. Wolff C, Mücke T, Wagenpfeil S, Kanatas A, Bissinger O Deppe H. Do CBCT scans alter surgical treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative surgical diagnosis using pa- noramic versus cone-beam CT images. J Craniomaxillo- fac Surg 2016
  9. 44(10): 1700-1705. 9. Bornstein MM, Brugger OE, Janner S, Kuchler U, Chap- puis V, Jacobs R, et al. Indications and frequency for the use of cone beam computed tomography for implant tre- atment planning in a specialty clinic. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015
  10. Dau M, Edalatpour A, Schulze R, Al-Nawas B, Alshih- ri A, Kämmerer PW. Presurgical evaluation of bony imp- lant sites using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography—influence of medical education. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2017
  11. 46(2): 20160081. 11. Bolin A, Eliasson S. Panoramic and tomographic di- mensional determinations for maxillary osseointegrated implants. Comparison of the morphologic information potential of two and three dimensional radiographic sys- tems. Swed Dent J 19