Journal of orthodontics · 2016
In vitro comparison of contemporary radiographic imaging techniques for the measurement of inter-radicular width.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Tamimi Bouthayna, Davies Jonathan, Fiorentino Francesca, Bister Dirk
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of inter-radicular measurements taken using dental pantomograms (DPT), long cone periapical radiographs (LCPA) and cone bean computed tomography (CBCT).
MATERIALS/METHODS: A typodont simulating a hypodontia patient undergoing fixed appliance treatment was used. LCPAs, DPT, I-CAT and Accuitomo CBCT images were taken and the distances between the edentulous spans were measured at the midpoint of the roots and the cemento-enamel junctions (CEJ) of adjacent teeth. The results of each modality were compared to each other to the actual inter-radicular space.
RESULTS: The DPT overestimated inter-radicular widths by 2 mm or more [mean: 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.09 to 6.05 mm]. The LCPA overestimated the inter-radicular widths by 1.5 mm with a 95% CI of -0.095 to 4.03 mm. The mean differences between gold standard (model) and Accuitomo was 0.57 mm (95% CI: -0.37 to 1.51 mm) for the root mean and 0.22 mm (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.96 mm) for the CEJ. This was similar to the differences between the model and I-CAT where the inter-radicular root mean difference was 0.38 mm (95% CI: -0.38 to 1.14 mm) and the CEJ mean difference was 0.21 mm (95% CI: -0.50 to 0.92 mm).
CONCLUSION: The CBCT overestimated the root distance by 0.48 mm and the CEJ width by 0.22 mm, which is clinically irrelevant for implant placement. The DPT overestimated inter-radicular width by 2 mm and the LCPA by 1.5 mm and this difference may put roots of adjacent teeth at risk during implant placement.
MATERIALS/METHODS: A typodont simulating a hypodontia patient undergoing fixed appliance treatment was used. LCPAs, DPT, I-CAT and Accuitomo CBCT images were taken and the distances between the edentulous spans were measured at the midpoint of the roots and the cemento-enamel junctions (CEJ) of adjacent teeth. The results of each modality were compared to each other to the actual inter-radicular space.
RESULTS: The DPT overestimated inter-radicular widths by 2 mm or more [mean: 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.09 to 6.05 mm]. The LCPA overestimated the inter-radicular widths by 1.5 mm with a 95% CI of -0.095 to 4.03 mm. The mean differences between gold standard (model) and Accuitomo was 0.57 mm (95% CI: -0.37 to 1.51 mm) for the root mean and 0.22 mm (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.96 mm) for the CEJ. This was similar to the differences between the model and I-CAT where the inter-radicular root mean difference was 0.38 mm (95% CI: -0.38 to 1.14 mm) and the CEJ mean difference was 0.21 mm (95% CI: -0.50 to 0.92 mm).
CONCLUSION: The CBCT overestimated the root distance by 0.48 mm and the CEJ width by 0.22 mm, which is clinically irrelevant for implant placement. The DPT overestimated inter-radicular width by 2 mm and the LCPA by 1.5 mm and this difference may put roots of adjacent teeth at risk during implant placement.