American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2023
Three-dimensional decision support system for treatment of canine impaction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Keener Dylan J, de Oliveira Ruellas Antonio Carlos, Aliaga-Del Castillo Aron, Arriola-Guillén Luis Ernesto, Bianchi Jonas, Oh Heesoo, Gurgel Marcela Lima, Benavides Erika, Soki Fabiana, Rodríguez-Cárdenas Yalil Augusto, Ruíz-Mora Gustavo Armando, Barkley Mary, Gebeck Thomas, Hannapel Eric, McClatchey Laurie McNamara, Pinzon Maria, Roberts Christopher, Cevidanes Lucia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to develop a 3-dimensional (3D) characterization of the severity of maxillary impacted canines and to test the clinical performance of this characterization as a treatment decision support tool.
METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography images obtained from 83 patients with 120 impacted maxillary canines were included. Quantitative information on the canine 3D position and qualitative assessment of root damage of adjacent teeth were evaluated. A severity index was constructed on the basis of the quantitative findings. Clinical applicability was tested by comparing clinical diagnosis and treatment planning for conventional records vs the 3D characterization via a 2-part survey.
RESULTS: The average quantitative assessments of impacted maxillary canine position were 6.4 ± 3.6 mm from the midsagittal plane, 11.6 ± 3.1 mm in height relative to the occlusal plane, 31.5° ± 18° of roll, and 48.8° ± 14.3° of pitch. The severity index ranged from 0-13 with a mean score of 4.5 ± 2.2. Overlap with adjacent teeth was the greatest contributor (33%) to the index. Bicortically impacted canines caused the most severe root damage. Cone-beam computed tomography was preferred for assessing root damage and overall severity, whereas conventional imaging was sufficient for height and angulation assessment. The 3D report was very important or important for evaluating root damage, canine position, overall severity, and overlap. The 3D report changed most of the decisions relating to biomechanics, patient education, and treatment time estimate. The decision of exposure and traction vs extraction was changed 22% of the time after the presentation of the 3D report.
CONCLUSIONS: The overlap with adjacent teeth frequently contributes the most to the severity index. The 3D report provided relevant clinical information regarding the canine position, damage to adjacent teeth, and the severity index, with a profound impact on the decisions of the clinicians regarding biomechanics, patient education, and treatment time estimate.
METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography images obtained from 83 patients with 120 impacted maxillary canines were included. Quantitative information on the canine 3D position and qualitative assessment of root damage of adjacent teeth were evaluated. A severity index was constructed on the basis of the quantitative findings. Clinical applicability was tested by comparing clinical diagnosis and treatment planning for conventional records vs the 3D characterization via a 2-part survey.
RESULTS: The average quantitative assessments of impacted maxillary canine position were 6.4 ± 3.6 mm from the midsagittal plane, 11.6 ± 3.1 mm in height relative to the occlusal plane, 31.5° ± 18° of roll, and 48.8° ± 14.3° of pitch. The severity index ranged from 0-13 with a mean score of 4.5 ± 2.2. Overlap with adjacent teeth was the greatest contributor (33%) to the index. Bicortically impacted canines caused the most severe root damage. Cone-beam computed tomography was preferred for assessing root damage and overall severity, whereas conventional imaging was sufficient for height and angulation assessment. The 3D report was very important or important for evaluating root damage, canine position, overall severity, and overlap. The 3D report changed most of the decisions relating to biomechanics, patient education, and treatment time estimate. The decision of exposure and traction vs extraction was changed 22% of the time after the presentation of the 3D report.
CONCLUSIONS: The overlap with adjacent teeth frequently contributes the most to the severity index. The 3D report provided relevant clinical information regarding the canine position, damage to adjacent teeth, and the severity index, with a profound impact on the decisions of the clinicians regarding biomechanics, patient education, and treatment time estimate.