Konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi istek nedenlerinin incelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ağız, Diş ve Çene Radyolojisi Anabilim Dalı’na başvuran ve çeşitli nedenlerle KIBT çekimi yapılmış olan hastalardan KIBT istek nedenlerinin ve bu isteklerin, yaş, cinsiyet ve bölümlere göre dağılımının retrospektif olarak incelenmesidir. 

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı’na Mart 2017-Mayıs 2018 tarihleri arasında başvuran 1010 hastanın KIBT (Planmeca Promax 3D; Planmcea, Helsinki, Finland) istek formları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. KIBT istenme nedeni, istek yapan bölümler, istenilen bölgeye ait bulgular ve KIBT çekim alanı incelendi.

Bulgular: 462’si erkek 548’i kadın toplam 1010 tomografi istek formu değerlendirildi. Yaşları 5-85 arasında değişen hastaların ortalama yaşları 38.31 ± 18.53 idi. En fazla isteğin implant planlaması (% 47.72) amacıyla olduğu belirlendi. Daha sonra sırasıyla tümör ve kist benzeri patolojiler  (% 23.07), gömülü dişlerin lokalizasyonu ve komşu anatomik yapılarla ilişkisinin incelenmesi (% 6.73), ortodontik amaçlı (% 3.76), travma (% 3.46), süpernümerer diş (% 2.87), paranazal sinüs patolojilerinin incelenmesi (%2.38), diş kökleri-mandibular kanal ilişkisinin değerlendirilmesi (% 2.18), dudak damak yarığı (%1.58), temporomandibular eklem patolojilerinin incelenmesi (% 1.29) ve diğer istek nedenleri (% 4.96) için yapıldığı saptandı. 

Sonuçlar: Diş hekimliğinde birçok alanda kullanılan KIBT’ın en çok implant planlaması için istenildiği tespit edildi. KIBT istek nedenlerinin incelenmesi; KIBT’ın kullanım alanlarının, sıklığının ve sınırlılıklarının belirlenmesinde katkı sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Diş hekimliği, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi, radyografi

Keywords

• Diş hekimliği,konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi,radyografi

Examination of cone-beam computerized tomography requests reasons

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to examine retrospectively the reasons of CBCT requests and the distribution of these requests according to age, gender and departments among patients who applied to Gaziantep University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology for various causes.

 

 Methods: In this study, the CBCT request forms of 1010 patients who attended to Gaziantep University Faculty of Dentistry Dentomaxillofacial Radiology Department between March 2017 and May 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. The reasons of the CBCT (Planmeca Promax 3D; Planmcea, Helsinki, Finland) requests, the departments requests, the findings of the region of interest and the field of view (FOV) were investigated.

 

Results: A total of 1010 patients (462 male and 548 female) were evaluated. The mean age of the patients ranging from 5 to 85 years was 38.31 ± 18.53. It was determined that the most request was implant planning (47.72%). Tumor and cyst-like pathologies (23.07%), localization of impacted teeth and the relationship between adjacent anatomical structures (6.73%), orthodontic (3.76%), trauma (3.46%), supernumerary teeth (2.87 %), paranasal sinus pathologies (2.38%), dental roots-mandibular canal (2.18%), cleft lip and palate (1.58%), temporomandibular joint pathologies (1.29%) and other causes of request (4.96%) were found, respectively.

 

Conclusion: CBCT, which is used in many fields in dentistry, was most requested for implant planning. Examination of CBCT requests reasons will contribute to determine the endications, frequency and limitations of CBCT.

 

 

KEY WORDS

Dentistry, cone-beam computerized tomography, radiography

Keywords

• Dentistry,cone-beam computerized tomography,radiography

References

1. 1.Cohenca N, Simon JH, Roges R, Morag Y, Malfaz JM. Clinical indications for digital imaging in dento-alveloar trauma. Part 1: Traumatic injuries. Dent Traumatol 2007;23:95-104.
2. 2.Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, Scwartz SA, Schindler WG. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod 2007;33:1121-32.
3. 3.Exadaktylos AK, Sclabas GM, Smolka K, Rahal A, Andreas RH, Iizuka T. The value of computed tomographic scanning in the diagnosis and management of orbital fractures associated with head trauma: a prospective study at a level 1 trauma center. J Trauma 2005;58:336-441.
4. 4.Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008;52:707-30.
5. 5.Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT-ımages for assessing periodontal breakdown. OralSurg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:395-401.
6. 6.Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:75-80.
7. 7.Harorlı A, Akgül M, Yılmaz B, Bilge O, Dağistan S, Çakur B, et al. Ağız, diş ve çene radyolojisi. 1. baskı İstanbul; Nobel Tıp Kitapevleri Tic. Ltd Şti; 2014. p. 207-222.
8. 8.Güven Y, Aktören O, Gençay K. Dentomaksillofasiyal bölge görüntülemesinde kullanılan üç boyutlu bilgisayarlı tomografi sistemleri 2008;15:159-64.

9. 9.Halazonetis DJ. From 2-dimensional cephalograms to 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod 2005;127:627-37.
10. 10.Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8:1558-64.
11. 11.Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone-beam computed tomography: White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation. Mosby 2009. p. 225-43.
12. 12.Dawood A, Patel S, Brown J. Cone beam CT in dental practice. Br Dent J 2009;207:23-8.
13. 13.SEDENTEXCT Guideline Development Panel. Radiation protection No 172. Cone beam ct for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate-General for Energy; 2012.
14. 14.Horner K. Cone-beam computed tomography: time for an evidence based approach. Prim Dent J 2013;2:22-31.
15. 15.Acar B, Kamburoğlu K. Use of computed cone beam tomography in periodontology. World J Radiol 2014;6:139-47.
16. 16.Warhekar S, Nagarajappa S, Dasar PL, Warhekar AM, Parihar A, Phulambrikar T, et al. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography and reasons for referral by dental practitioners in indore city (m.p). J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:21-4.
17. 17.Akarslan Z, Peker İ. Bir diş hekimliğifakültesindeki konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi incelemesiistenme nedenleri. Acta Odontol Turc 2015;32:1-6.
18. 18.White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology-E-Book: Principles and Interpretation: Elsevier Health Sciences 2014;7:206.
19. 19.Samur S. Diş hekimliğinde cone beam bilgisayarlı tomografi. ADO Klinik Bilimleri Dergisi 2009;3:346-51.
20. 20.Spector L.Computer-aided dental ımplant planning. Dent Clin North Am 2008;52:761-75.
21. 21.Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental ımplant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:2130-5.
22. 22.Berberi A, Le Breton G, Mani J, Woimant H, Nasseh I. Lingual parasthesia following surgical placement of implants: report of a case. Int J Oral and Maxillofac Implants 1993;8: 580-2.
23. 23.Murray P, Brown NL. The conservative approach to managing unerupted lower premolars – two case reports. Int J Paediat Dent British Paedod Soc Int Assoc Dent Child 2003;13:198-203.
24. 24. McNamara C, McNamara TG. Mandibular premolar impaction: 2 case reports. J Can Dent Assoc 2005;71:859-63.
25. 25.Aboudara CA, Hatcher D, Nielsen IL, Miller A. A three dimensional evaluation of the upper airway in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:173-5.
26. 26.Cevidanes SHL, Styner AM, Proffit RW. Image analysis and superimposition of 3- dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:611-8.
27. 27.Mah JK, Danforth RA, Bumann A, Hatcher D. Radiation absorbed in maxillofacial imaging with a new dental computed tomography device. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:508-13.
28. 28.Sirin Y, Guven K, Horasan S, Sencan S. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and conventional multislice spiral tomography in sheepmandibular condyle fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:336-42.
29. 29.Kaeppler G, Cornelius CP, Ehrenfeld M, Mast G. Diagnostic efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography for mandibular fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:98-104.
30. 30.Hodez C, Griffaton-Taillandier C, Bensimon I. Cone-beam imaging: applications in ENT. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2011;128:65-78.
31. 31.Bomeli SR, Branstetter BFt, Ferguson BJ. Frequency of a dental source for acute maxillary sinusitis. Laryngoscope 2009;119:580-4.
32. 32.Brook I. Sinusitis of odontogenic origin. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135:349-55.
33. 33.Shanbhag S, Karnik P, Shirke P, Shanbhag V. Association between periapical lesions and maxillary sinus mucosal thickening: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Endod 2013;39:853-7.
34. 34.Mamta Raghav, Freny R. Karjodkar, Subodh Sontakke, Kaustubh Sansare. Prevalence of incidental maxillary sinus pathologies in dental patients on cone-beam computed tomographic images. Contemp Clin Dent 2014;5:361-5.
35. 35.Lewis EL, Dolwick MF, Abramowicz S, Reeder SL. Contemporary imaging of the temporomandibular joint. Dent Clin North Am 2008;52:875-90.
36. 36. Mol A. Imaging methods in periodontology. Periodontol 2000 2004;34:34-48.
37. 37.Mohan R, Singh A, Gundappa M. Three dimensional imaging in periodontal diagnosis-Utilization of cone beam computed tomography. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2011;15:11-7.
38. 38.Chitralekha C, Prasad PA, Nalini HE, Devi RR. Cone beam computed tomography: Three dimensional imaging in periodontal diagnosis. J Indian Acad Dent Spec Res 2017;4:12-7.
39. 39.Bueno MR, Estrela C, De Figueiredo JA, Azevedo BC. Map-reading strategy to diagnose root perforations near metallic intracanal posts by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37:85-90.
40. 40.Parirokh M, Ardjomand K, Manochehrifar H. Artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography of a post and core restoration: A Case Report. Iran Endod J 2012;7:98-101.