SavedAdd your journal

Journals / 7tepe Klinik / 2018 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography in the detection of mandibular anatomic variations

Mandibular anatomik varyasyonların tespit edilmesinde panoramik radyografi ve konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografinin karşılaştırılması

Ömür DERECİ
Pages
31–36
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)

In order to prevent unforeseen complications, advanced imaging techniques shouldbe used in the interforaminal region during pre-surgical planning of oral surgical procedures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of panoramic radiography (OPG) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of mandibular anatomicalvariations of accessory mental foramen (AMF), retromolar foramen (RF), bifid mandibular canal (BMC), mandibular incisivecanal (MIC) and lingual foramen (LF).Materials and Methods: Clinical and radiological data of 189patients, who were treated between 01/04/2013-01/04/2017,were retrieved from archieves and evaluated retrospectively.The anatomical variations of AMF, RF, BMC, MIC and LF weredetected on both OPG and CBCT sections for all includedpatients by two researchers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The researchers were calibrated with Cohen’s Kappa test (p 0.05), whereas, MIC and LF incidences werefound to be significantly different between two imaging modalities (p<0.05).Conclusions: CBCT was significantly more efficient thanOPG in the diagnosis of MIC and LF.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In order to prevent unforeseen complications, advanced imaging techniques shouldbe used in the interforaminal region during pre-surgical planning of oral surgical procedures.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of panoramic radiography (OPG) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of mandibular anatomicalvariations of accessory mental foramen (AMF), retromolar foramen (RF), bifid mandibular canal (BMC), mandibular incisivecanal (MIC) and lingual foramen (LF).Materials and Methods: Clinical and radiological data of 189patients, who were treated between 01/04/2013-01/04/2017,were retrieved from archieves and evaluated retrospectively.The anatomical variations of AMF, RF, BMC, MIC and LF weredetected on both OPG and CBCT sections for all includedpatients by two researchers. The researchers were calibrated with Cohen’s Kappa test (p 0.05), whereas, MIC and LF incidences werefound to be significantly different between two imaging modalities (p<0.05).Conclusions: CBCT was significantly more efficient thanOPG in the diagnosis of MIC and LF. In order to prevent unforeseen complications, advanced imaging techniques shouldbe used in the interforaminal region during pre-surgical planning of oral surgical procedures.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı mandibulada görülen anatomik varyasyonlar olan aksesuar mental foramen (AMF), retromolar foramen (RF), bifid mandibular kanal (BMK), mandibular insiziv kanal (MİK) ve lingual foramenin (LF) teşhisinde panoramik radyografi (OPG) ve konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografinin (KIBT) etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliniğimizde 01/04/2013-01/04/2017 tarihleri arasında tedavi edilmiş 189 hastanın klinik ve radyografik verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Çalışmaya dahil edilen hastaların hem OPG görüntüleri hem de KIBT kesitleri AMF, RF, BMK, MİK ve LF varlığı açısından iki araştırmacı tarafından incelendi. Araştırmacılar Cohen Kappa testi ile kalibre edildi (p 0.05), MİK ve LF insidansları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (p<0.05). Sonuçlar: KIBT, MİK ve LF teşhisinde OPG’den daha başarılıdır. Mandibula interforaminal bölgeye yapılacak cerrahi plan lamalarda ileri görüntüleme tekniklerinin kullanılması, öngörülemeyen komplikasyonları önlemek açısından önem taşımaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DERECİ, Ö. (2022). Comparison of panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography in the detection of mandibular anatomic variations. 7tepe Klinik, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 31–36. https://ajindex.com/articles/426079

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Naitoh M, Hiraiwa Y, Aimiya H, Ariji E. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 155- 159. Pommer B, Tepper G, Gahleitner A, Zechner W, Watzek G. New safety margins for chin bone harvesting based on the course of the mandibular incisive canal in CT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 1312-1316.
  2. Tepper G, Hofschneider UB, Gahleitner A, Ulm C. Computed tomographic diagnosis and localization of bone canals in the mandibular interforaminal region for prevention of bleeding complications during implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 68-72.
  3. He X, Jiang J, Cai W, Pan Y, Yang Y,. Assessment of the appearance, location and morphology of mandibular lingual foramina using cone beam computed tomography. Int Dent J 2016; 66: 272-279.
  4. Leite GM, Lana JP, de Carvalho Machado V, Manzi FR, Souza PE,. Anatomic variations and lesions of the mandibular canal detected by cone beam computed tomography. Surg Radiol Anat 2014; 36: 795-804.
  5. Mraiwa N, Jacobs R, Moerman P, Lambrichts I, van Steenberghe D,. Presence and course of the incisive canal in the human mandibular interforaminal region: two-dimensional imaging versus anatomical observations. Surg Radiol Anat 2003; 25: 416-423.
  6. Orhan K, Aksoy S, Bilecenoglu B, Sakul BU, Paksoy CS. Evaluation of bifid mandibular canals with cone-beam computed tomography in a Turkish adult population: a retrospective study. Surg Radiol Anat 2011; 33: 501-507.
  7. Motamedi MH, Gharedaghi J, Mehralizadeh S, Navi F, Badkoobeh A,. Anthropomorphic assessment of the retromolar foramen and retromolar nerve: anomaly or variation of normal anatomy? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 45: 241-244.
  8. Miloro M, Ghali G, Larsen P, Waite P. Peterson’s principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2nd ed., Canada, BC Decker Inc.; 2004.
  9. Boeddinghaus R, Whyte A. Current concepts in maxillofacial imaging. Eur J Radiol 2008; 66: 396-418.
  10. Politis C, Ramírez XB, Sun Y, Lambrichts I, Heath N,. Visibility of mandibular canal on panoramic radiograph after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO). Surg Radiol Anat 2013; 35: 233-240.
  11. Kalpidis CD, Setayesh RM. Hemorrhaging associated with endosseous implant placement in the anterior mandible: a review of the literature. J Periodontol 2004; 75: 631-645. Su N, van Wijk A, Berkhout E, Sanderink G, De Lange J,. Predictive Value of Panoramic Radiography for Injury of Inferior Alveolar Nerve After Mandibular Third Molar Surgery. J Oral