Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int Orthod ; 21(3): 100780, 2023 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37290351

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although the widespread cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a diagnosing tool for impacted canines, the surgical exposure-based diagnostic accuracy of this 3D imaging modality has not been established yet. Therefore this study aimed to (1) compare the accuracy of CBCT- and 2D-based interpretations of impacted canine and its relationships with the neighbouring structures with the gold standard (GS) readings, (2) and calculate the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity values of the variables assessed using CBCT and 2D methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with unilateral impacted maxillary canines (IMCs) planned for surgical extraction between 2016-2018 were checked in-depth to include in this cross-sectional study. For each patient, 2D and 3D radiographic records were obtained and assessed by eight postgraduate orthodontic students. These assessments were compared with the GS readings based on surgical exposure and direct vision of the IMCs. To compare 2D- and CBCT-based assessments with the GS values, Cochran's Q tests, Friedman's tests, McNemar's, McNemar-Bowker's, and Wilcoxon tests were applied. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients (6 males, 11 females; mean age: 20.52±3.98 years) were randomly selected and included in this study. Significant differences were found between the CBCT-based assessments and the GS only concerning shape and bony coverage of the IMC (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). On the contrary, there were significant differences between the 2D-based assessments and the GS regarding all the assessed variables except for the ankylosis and the proximity to the adjacent teeth (P=0.424, and P=0.080, respectively). CBCT-based assessments had remarkably higher values of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared to 2D-based ones. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT outperformed 2D radiography in localizing the IMC (labiopalatal, mesiodistal, and vertical location), detecting root apex development of the IMCs, and the resorption of the adjacent incisors. Although both 2D and 3D techniques showed the same ability in the diagnosis of IMCs ankylosis, the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was superior. However, both techniques inaccurately determined the shape of the impacted canine and the bony coverage.


Asunto(s)
Resorción Radicular , Anquilosis del Diente , Diente Impactado , Masculino , Femenino , Humanos , Radiografía Panorámica/métodos , Estudios Transversales , Maxilar/diagnóstico por imagen , Maxilar/cirugía , Diente Canino/diagnóstico por imagen , Diente Canino/cirugía , Diente Impactado/diagnóstico por imagen , Diente Impactado/cirugía , Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA