KONİK IŞINLI BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİ GÖRÜNTÜLERİNDE RASTLANTISAL BULGULAR: BİR KESİTSEL ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2023, , 422 - 428, 25.09.2023

Mehmet Özgür Özemre , Nazan Kocak Topbas , Hazal Karslıoğlu , Cansu Köseoğlu Seçgin , Kaan Orhan

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1129098

Öz

Amaç: Maksillofasiyal konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntülerinde karşılaşılan rastlantısal bulguların yerini, tipini ve sıklığını geriye dönük olarak incelemektir.
Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmada, 2018-2021 yılları arasında sadece implant planlaması amacıyla alınmış konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleri geriye dönük olarak rastlantısal bulgu varlığı açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Görüntüler, iki deneyimli dentomaksillofasiyal radyolog tarafından geriye dönük olarak incelenmiştir. Rastlantısal bulgular bulundukları bölgeye göre; hava yolu bulguları, gömülü diş-kök varlığı, temporomandibular eklem bulguları, endodontik lezyonlar, osteoskleroz ve yumuşak doku kalsifikasyonları olarak sınıflandırılmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışmada 109’u erkek 91’i kadın olan toplam 200 hastanın (yaş ortalaması 50,54 (36-68)) konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleri incelendi. Rastlantısal bulguların dağılımı açısından cinsiyetler arasında anlamlı fark bulunamadı (p=0,857). Yaş ile rastlantısal bulguların gözlenmesi arasında korelasyon yoktu (p=0,525). Rastlantısal bulguların en çok görüldüğü bölge hava yolu olup ardından sırasıyla, gömülü diş ve artık kökler, TME bulguları, endodontik lezyon, osteoskleroz ve yumuşak doku kalsifikasyonları gelmektedir.
Sonuç: Çalışmada değerlendirilen görüntülerin %88’inde rastlantısal bulgu gözlenmiş olup çalışmadaki hasta başına düşen rastlantısal bulgu sayısı 1,16 dır. Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntülerini değerlendiren dentomaksillofasiyal radyolog veya hekimlerin, tomografi istek endikasyonuna bağlı kalmaksızın görüntü alanına giren tüm yapıları detaylı olarak değerlendirmesi, takip/tedavi gerektirebilecek durumların teşhisi ve hastanın yönlendirilmesi açısından son derece önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, Tanısal Görüntüleme, Tesadüfi Bulgular

INCIDENTAL FINDINGS IN CBCT IMAGES : A CROSS-SECTİONAL STUDY

Öz

Objective: To evaluate the location, type and frequency of incidental findings encountered in maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography images.
Material and methods: In the study, cone-beam computed tomography images taken only for implant planning between 2018-2021 were evaluated retrospectively for the presence of incidental findings. The images were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced dentomaxillofacial radiologists. Incidental findings were classified as airway findings, impacted tooth-root presence, temporomandibular joint findings, endodontic lesions, osteosclerosis, and soft tissue calcifications according to their location.
Results: In the study, cone beam computed tomography images of a total of 200 patients(mean age 50.54(36-68) years), 109 male and 91 female, were analyzed. There was no significant difference between the genders in terms of the distribution of incidental findings(p=0.857). There was no correlation between age and the presence of incidental findings(p=0.525). The region with the most incidental findings is the airway, followed by impacted teeth and residual roots, TMJ findings, endodontic lesion, osteosclerosis and soft tissue calcifications.
Conclusion: Incidental findings were observed in 88% of the images evaluated in the study, and the number of incidental findings per patient in the study was 1.16. It is extremely important for dentomaxillofacial radiologists or dentists who evaluate cone beam computed tomography images to evaluate all structures in the field of view in detail, regardless of the tomography request indication, in terms of diagnosing conditions that may require follow-up/treatment and guiding the patient.

Anahtar Kelimeler

cone beam computed tomography, diagnostic imaging, incidental findings

Kaynakça

• Refereans1. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, Howerton WB. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35:219–26.
• Refereans2. Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104:395–401.
• Refereans3. Ivna A Lopes, Rosana M A Tucunduva, Roberta H Handem and Ana Lucia A Capelozza. Study of the frequency and location of incidental findings of the maxillofacial region in different fields of view in CBCT scans. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2017;46, 20160215
• Refereans4. White SC. Cone-beam imaging in dentistry. Health physics. 2008;95(5):628-37.
• Referans5. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Den Assoc. 2006;72(1):75-80.
• Referans6. Sandy Dief, ,Analia Veitz-Keenan, Niloufar Amintavakoli and Richard McGowan. A systematic review on incidental findings in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2019;48, 20180396
• Referans7. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM, Mayo-Smith WW, Megibow AJ, Yee J, et al. Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(10):754-73.
• Referans8. Önem E, Alpöz E, Dündar N, Tuğsel Z. Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografide rastlantısal bulgular. Kamburoğlu K, editör. Dentomaksillofasiyal Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi: Temel Prensipler, Teknikler ve Klinik Uygulamalar. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2019. p.85-93.
• Referans9. Carter L, Farman AG, Geist J, Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C, Nair MK, et al; American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. American academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106 561-2.
• Referans10. Horner K, Islam M, Flygare L, Tsiklakis K, Whaites E. Basic principles for use of dental cone beam computed tomography: consensus guidelines of the European Academy of Dental and Maxillofacial Radiology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:187-95.
• Referans11. Allareddy V, Vincent SD, Hellstein JW, Qian F, Smoker WR, Ruprecht A. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography images. Int J Dent 2012;9:871532
• Referans12. Price JB, Thaw KL, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Padilla RJ. Incidental findings from cone beam computed tomography of the maxillofacial region: a descriptive retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1261–8
• Referans13. Pette GA, Norkin FJ, Ganeles J, Hardigan P, Lask E, Zfaz S, et al. Incidental findings from a retrospective study of 318 cone beam computed tomography consultation reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 595–603.
• Referans14. Drage N, Rogers S, Greenall C, Playle R. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography in orthodontic patients. J Orthod 2013;40: 29–37
• Referans15. Edwards R, Alsufyani N, Heo G, Flores-Mir C. The frequency and nature of incidental findings in large-field cone beam computed tomography scans of an orthodontic sample. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:37
• Referans16. Mamdouh O. Kachlan, Jie Yang, Thomas J. Balshi, Glenn J. Wolfinger and Stephen F. Balshi. Incidental Findings in Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Dental Implants in 1002 Patients. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2021;30 665–675
• Referans17. P-N Nguyen, E Kruger, T Huang, B Koong. Incidental findings detected on cone beam computed tomography in an older population for pre-implant assessment . Aust Den J. 2020; 65: 252–258
• Referans18. Christoph Kocsis, Jan M Sommerlath Sohns, Isabelle Graf, Timo Dreiseidler, Matthias Kreppel, Daniel Rothamel, et all. Incidental findings on craniomaxillofacial cone beam computed tomography in orthodontic patients. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(2):149-162.
• Referans19. Cha JY, Mah J, Sinclair P. Incidental findings in the maxillofacial area with 3-dimensional cone-beam imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:7-14
• Referans20. Smith KD, Edwards PC, Saini TS, Norton NS. The prevalence of concha bullosa and nasal septal deviation and their relationship to maxillary sinusitis by volumetric tomography. Int J Dent. 2010;404982
• Referans21. Hatipoglu HG, Cetin MA, Yuksel E. Nasal septal deviation and concha bullosa coexistence: CT evaluation. B-ENT 2008; 4:227–232.
• Referans22. Crow HC, Parks E, Campbell JH, Stucki DS, Daggy J. The utility of panoramic radiography in temporomandibular joint assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005; 34:91–95.
• Referans23. Miloglu O, Yalcin E, Buyukkurt M, Yilmaz A, Harorli A. The frequency of bifid mandibular condyle in a Turkish patient population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol.2010; 39:42–46.
• Referans24. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. The distribution of individual tooth impaction in general dental patients of Northern India. Community Dent Health. 2010; 27:184-186.
• Referans25. Fardi A, Kondylidou-Sidira A, Bachour Z, Parisis N, Tsirlis A. Incidence of impacted and supernumerary teeth-a radiographic study in a North Greek population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 16:56–61
• Referans26. Cha JY, Mah J, Sinclair P. Incidental findings in the maxillofacial area with 3-dimensional cone-beam imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132:7– 14.