PEDİATRİK HASTALARDA KONİK IŞINLI BİLGİSAYARLI TOMOGRAFİ KULLANIMI: RETROSPEKTİF GÖZLEMSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada diş hekimliği fakültemizde konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) görüntüleme isteklerinin nedenlerinin belirlenmesi, sınıflandırılması ve hangi nedenlerin daha sık KIBT görüntüleme gerektirdiğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: KIBT veri tabanından 956 pediatrik hasta incelenmiştir. Daha sonra yaş, cinsiyet, sevk nedeni, görüş alanı (FOV) ve sevk departmanları toplanmıştır. Hastalar yaş dağılımına göre 1-6 yaş, 7-12 yaş ve 13-17 yaş olarak gruplandırılmıştır. Tanımlayıcı ve karşılaştırmalı istatistiksel analiz yapılmıştır. Bulgular: KIBT sevk nedenleri incelendiğinde en sık başvurulan istekler sırasıyla kemik patolojisi (%26,25), gömülü dişler (%19,87), diş anomalileri (%14,12), yarık dudak ve damak (%13,91) idi. Sevk nedenleri yaş gruplarına göre değerlendirildiğinde, dentoalveolar travma (p=0,049), gömülü dişler (p=0,000), diş anomalileri (p=0,000), cerrahi uygulamalar (p=0,021), kemik patolojisi (p=0,004), dudak damak yarığı, endikasyonlar ve yaş grupları arasında (p=0,000) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, diş hekimlerine üç boyutlu görüntüleme için çocuk hastaları sevk etmede rehberlik edebilir.

Keywords

• Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi
• FOV
• endikasyon
• pediatrik diş hekimliği
• radyasyonun etkileri

USE OF CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to determine and classify the reasons for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging requests in the Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry, and to examine which reasons more commonly require CBCT imaging. Material and methods: From the local CBCT database, 956 pediatric patients gave their consent. Subsequently, age, gender, the reason for referral, a field of view (FOV), and referral departments were collected. Patients were grouped according to age distribution as 1-6 years, 7-12 years, and 13-17 years. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis was performed. Results: When CBCT referral reasons were analyzed, some of the most common requests were bone pathology (26.25%), impacted teeth (19.87%), dental anomalies (14.12%), cleft lip, and palate (13.91%), respectively. When referral reasons are evaluated according to age groups, dentoalveolar trauma (p=0.049), impacted teeth (p=0.000), dental anomalies, surgical applications (p=0.021), bone pathology (p=0.004), cleft lip and palate statistically significant differences were found between the (p=0.000) indications and age groups (p=0.000). Conclusion: This study can guide dental practitioners in referring pediatric patients for three-dimensional imaging

Keywords

• Cone-beam computed tomography
• field of view
• indication
• pediatric dentistry
• radiation effects

References

1. Costa EDD, Queiroz PM, Santaella GM, Capelozza ALA, Ambrosano GMB, Freitas DQ. Influence of scan mode (partial/full rotations) and FOV size in the formation of artefacts in cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2019;48(4):20180340. google scholar
2. Shukla S, Chug A, Afrashtehfar KI. Role of cone beam computed tomography in diagnosis and treatment planning in dentistry: an update. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7(Suppl 3):S125-36. google scholar
3. Rehani M, Gupta R, Bartling S, Sharp G, Pauwels R, Berris T, et al. ICRP publication 129: Radiological protection in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Ann ICRP 2015;44(1):9-127. google scholar
4. Van Acker JW, Martens LC, Aps JK. Cone-beam computed tomography in pediatric dentistry, a retrospective observational study. Clin Oral Invest 2016;20(5):1003-10. google scholar
5. De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen G. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38(6):609-25. google scholar
6. Katheria BC, Kau CH, Tate R, Chen J-W, English J, Bouquot J. Effectiveness of impacted and supernumerary tooth diagnosis from traditional radiography versus cone beam computed tomography. Pediatr Dent 2010;32(4):304-9. google scholar
7. Nematolahi H, Abadi H, Mohammadzade Z, Ghadim MS. The use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to determine supernumerary and impacted teeth position in pediatric patients: A case report. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2013;7(1):47-50. google scholar
8. Mehta V, Ahmad N. Cone beamed computed tomography in pediatric dentistry: Concepts revisited. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020;10(2):210-11. google scholar

9. Korbmacher H, Kahl-Nieke B, Schöllchen M, Heiland M. Value of two cone-beam computed tomography systems from an orthodontic point of view. J Orofac Orthop 2007;68(4):278-89. google scholar
10. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, De Gonzalez AB. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 2009;251(1):6-12. google scholar
11. Theodorakou C, Walker A, Horner K, Pauwels R, Bogaerts R, Jacobs Dds R, et al. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1010):153-60. google scholar
12. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on prescribing dental radiographs for infants, children, adolescents, and persons with special health care needs. Pediatr Dent 2012;34(5):189-91. google scholar
13. İşman Ö, Yılmaz HH, Aktan AM, Yılmaz B. Indications for cone beam computed tomography in children and young patients in a Turkish subpopulation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017;27(3):183-90. google scholar
14. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence-based guidelines. Publications Office; 2012. Available from: doi/10.2768/21874 google scholar
15. Oenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Stratis A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B. Cone-beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol 2018;48(3):308-16. google scholar
16. Gümrü B, Guldali M, Tarcin B, Idman E, Peker S. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography referral profile: Retrospective study in a Turkish paediatric subpopulation. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2021;22(2):66-70. google scholar
17. 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):336-48. google scholar
18. Suzuki H, Fujimaki S, Chigono T, Yamamura M, Sakabe R, Sakabe J, et al. Survey on the using limited area cone beam CT in pediatric dentistry. Japan J Pediatr Dent 2006;44(4):609-16. google scholar
19. Yepes JF, Booe MR, Sanders BJ, Jones JE, Ehrlich Y, Ludlow JB, et al. Pediatric phantom dosimetry of Kodak 9000 cone-beam computed tomography. Pediatr Dent 2017;39(3):229-32. google scholar
20. Eronat N, Koparal E. Dental caries prevalence, dietary habits, tooth-brushing, and mother's education in 500 urban Turkish children. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac 1997;2(4):599-604. google scholar
21. Yiğit T, Yüksel HT, Evirgen Ş, Kaçmaz I, Türkmenoğlu A. Evaluation of use of cone beam computed tomography in paediatric patients: A cross-sectional study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2023;00:1-9. google scholar