Pediatrik ve Adolesan Hasta Grubunda Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Endikasyonlarının Retrospektif Analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, pediatrik ve adolesan hastalarda konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) endikasyonlarının değerlendirilmesi ve DIMITRA (dentomaxillofacial paediatric imaging: an investigation toward low-dose radiation induced risks) Projesi ile belirlenen kılavuza uygunluğunun araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Materyal ve Metot: Retrospektif olarak incelen toplam 12494 KIBT görüntüsü arasından pediatrik ve adolesan hastaların KIBT görüntüleri seçilmiş ve değerlendirilmiştir. Yaş, cinsiyet, sevk eden bölüm, görüntüleme alanı (FOV) ve KIBT endikasyonlarına ilişkin veriler kaydedilmiştir. Avrupa DIMITRA Projesi önerilerinin modifikasyonuna dayanarak KIBT endikasyonları gömülü dişler, travma, orofasiyal yarıklar, dental anomaliler, kemik patolojisi, sendromlar ve diğer endikasyonlar olarak kategorize edilmiştir. Takip KIBT incelemeleri ve tesadüfi bulgular da kaydedilmiştir. Veriler istatistiksel olarak p<0,05 anlamlılık düzeyinde analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Pediatrik ve adolesan hastalardan alınan 1686 adet KIBT görüntüsünün çoğu Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyolojisi Anabilim Dalı’ndan (%31,2) istenmiş olup, bunu Ortodonti (%25,9) ve Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalları (%24,6) izlemiştir. En sık istenen FOV maksilla (%35,1) olup, bunu çeneler (maksilla-mandibula) (%29,3) takip etmiştir. Lokalize uygulamalar arasında en sık istenen bölge maksiller kanin-kesici bölge (%83,1) olarak saptanmıştır. En sık görülen KIBT endikasyonu gömülü dişler (%33,5) olup, bunu kemik patolojisi (%32,7) izlemiştir. Takip KIBT incelemeleri çoğunlukla sendromlar (%33,3) ve orofasiyal yarıklar (%20,4) için istenmiştir. Sonuç: KIBT kullanımı hasta bazında gerekçelendirilmelidir ve DIMITRA Projesi tavsiyeleri diş hekimlerine pediatrik ve adolesan popülasyonda KIBT endikasyonlarında rehberlik edebilir.

Keywords

• konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi
• endikasyon
• pediatrik
• adolesan

Retrospective Analysis of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Referrals in a Paediatric and Adolescent Patient Subgroup

Abstract

Aim: This study was aimed to evaluate the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) indications in paediatric and adolescent patients and to investigate their compliance with the guidelines set by the DIMITRA (dentomaxillofacial paediatric imaging: an investigation toward low-dose radiation induced risks) Project. Materials and Methods: CBCT images of paediatric and adolescent patients were selected and evaluated among a total of 12494 CBCT images reviewed retrospectively. Data regarding age, gender, referring department, field of view (FOV), and CBCT indications were recorded. Based on an adaptation of European DIMITRA Project recommendations, CBCT indications were categorized as impacted teeth, trauma, orofacial clefts, dental anomalies, bone pathology, syndromes, and other indications. Follow-up CBCT examinations and incidental findings were also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed at p<0.05 significance level. Results: Most of the 1686 CBCT scans obtained from pediatric and adolescent patients were referred from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (31.2%), followed by the Departments of Orthodontics (25.9%) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (24.6%). The most frequently requested FOV was the maxilla (35.1%) followed by the jaws (maxilla-mandible) (29.3%) and the maxillary canine-incisor region was the most commonly requested region among localised applications (83.1%). The most common indication was impacted teeth (33.5%) followed by bone pathology (32.7%). Follow-up CBCT examinations were recorded mostly for syndromes (33.3%) and orofacial clefts (20.4%). Conclusions: The use of CBCT should be justified on a patient basis and DIMITRA Project recommendations can guide dental professionals in referring CBCT in paediatric and adolescent population.

Keywords

• cone beam computed tomography
• indication
• paediatric
• adolescent

References

1. Adibi S, Zhang W, Servos T, O’Neill PN. Cone beam computed tomography in dentistry: what dental educators and learners should know. J. Dent. Educ. 2012;76(11):1437-1442.
2. Alamri HM, Sadrameli M, Alshalhoob MA, Sadrameli M, Alshehri MA. Applications of CBCT in dental practice: a review of the literature. Gen. Dent. 2012;60(5):390-400.
3. Aps JK. Cone beam computed tomography in paediatric dentistry: overview of recent literature. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2013;14(3):131-140.
4. Aytugar E, Unver T, Gumru Tarcın B. Cone-beam computed tomography: Radiation dose, risks and prevention. Kamburoglu K, editor. Dentomaxillofacial Cone Beam Computed Tomography: Basic Principles, Techniques and Clinical Applications. 1st Edition. Ankara: Turkish Clinics; 2019. p.22-31.
5. Gallichan N, Albadri S, Dixon C, Jorgenson K. Trends in CBCT current practice within three UK paediatric dental departments. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2020;21(4):537-542.
6. Gumru B, Guldali M, Tarcin B, Idman E, Sertac Peker M. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography referral profile: Retrospective study in a Turkish paediatric subpopulation. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2021;22(1):66-70.
7. Hajem S, Brogårdh-Roth S, Nilsson M, Hellén-Halme K. CBCT of Swedish children and adolescents at an oral and maxillofacial radiology department. A survey of requests and indications. Acta. Odontol. Scand. 2020;78(1):38-44.
8. Hedesiu M, Marcu M, Salmon B, Pauwels R, Oenning AC, Almasan O, Roman R, Baciut M, Jacobs R; DIMITRA Research Group. Irradiation provided by dental radiological procedures in a pediatric population. Eur. J. Radiol. 2018;103:112-117.

9. Henein C, Bhatia SK, Drage N. The use of cone beam computed tomographic imaging in a paediatric dentistry department. Oral. 2021;1(2):45-55.
10. Hidalgo-Rivas JA, Theodorakou C, Carmichael F, Murray B, Payne M, Horner K. Use of cone beam CT in children and young people in three United Kingdom dental hospitals. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2014;24(5):336-348.
11. Isman O, Yılmaz HH, Aktan AM, Yilmaz B. Indications for cone beam computed tomography in children and young patients in a Turkish subpopulation. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2017;27(3):183-190.
12. Li G. Patient radiation dose and protection from cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging. Sci. Dent. 2013;43(2):63-69.
13. Liang X, Jacobs R, Hassan B, Li L, Pauwels R, Corpas L, Souza PC, Martens W, Shahbazian M, Alonso A, Lambrichts I. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. Eur. J. Radiol. 2010;75(2):265-269.
14. Mizban L, El-Belihy M, Vaidyanathan M, Brown J. An audit and service evaluation of the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a paediatric dentistry department. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2019;48(5):20180393.
15. Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B; DIMITRA Research Group, http://www.dimitra.be. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr. Radiol. 2018;48(3):308-316.
16. Radiation Protection No. 172. Evidence based guidelines on cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2012. Available from: http://www.sedentexct.eu/files/radiation_ protection_172.pdf
17. Scarfe WC. Radiation risk in low-dose maxillofacial radiography. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. 2012;114(3):277-280.
18. Suzuki H, Fujimaki S, Chigono T, Yamamura M, Sakabe R, Sakabe J, Niikuni N, Nakajima I, Ejima K, Hashimoto K. Survey on the using limited area cone beam CT in pediatric dentistry. Japan. J. Pediatr. Dent. 2006;44:609-616.
19. Van Acker JW, Martens LC, Aps JK. Cone-beam computed tomography in pediatric dentistry, a retrospective observational study. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2016;20(5):1003-1010.