Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2010
Comparison between two tomographic sections in the diagnosis of external root resorption.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Lermen Cláudio Afonso, Liedke Gabriela Salatino, da Silveira Heloísa Emília Dias, da Silveira Heraldo Luis Dias, Mazzola Alessandro André, de Figueiredo José Antônio Poli
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of coronal and sagittal CT sections to detect cavities simulating root resorption.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 60 mandibular incisors were embedded in plaster bases, and cavities with 0.6, 1.2 or 1.8 mm in diameter and 0.3, 0.6 or 0.9 mm in depth (small, medium and large cavities) were drilled on the buccal surfaces with high-speed round burs with diameters of 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 mm to simulate external inflammatory root resorption. Simulations in the cervical, middle and apical thirds of each tooth root were made randomly. The Dental Scan software was used to obtain 1-mm-thick axial images from direct scanning, which were reconstructed in the coronal and sagittal planes using 3D software (Syngo FastView). Each series was loaded into the software. Fourteen images of each tooth were reconstructed in the coronal plane and 14 in the sagittal plane. A total of 1,652 images were obtained for analysis. Series information, tooth number and the plane reconstructed were stored. The images generated were saved on a CD-ROM together with the visualization software (Syngo FastView). Images were analyzed by a previously calibrated blinded, radiologist. Cochran's Q test was conducted separately for each region analyzed followed by pair-wise comparison by the McNemar test (p=0.05).
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was observed in the diagnosis of simulated resorption between the apical, middle, and coronal thirds. When the axial plane was assessed separately, diagnoses were statistically different (p<0.05) among the three root thirds. The apical third differed significantly (p<0.05) from the cervical and middle thirds. Diagnostic errors were more often observed in the apical third compared to the cervical and middle thirds. Mid-sized cavities revealed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between planes, irrespective of the third in which the resorptions were located.
CONCLUSION: When tomographic sections are requested for the diagnosis of buccal or lingual external root resorption, sagittal sections afford the best image characterization of the resorption process.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 60 mandibular incisors were embedded in plaster bases, and cavities with 0.6, 1.2 or 1.8 mm in diameter and 0.3, 0.6 or 0.9 mm in depth (small, medium and large cavities) were drilled on the buccal surfaces with high-speed round burs with diameters of 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 mm to simulate external inflammatory root resorption. Simulations in the cervical, middle and apical thirds of each tooth root were made randomly. The Dental Scan software was used to obtain 1-mm-thick axial images from direct scanning, which were reconstructed in the coronal and sagittal planes using 3D software (Syngo FastView). Each series was loaded into the software. Fourteen images of each tooth were reconstructed in the coronal plane and 14 in the sagittal plane. A total of 1,652 images were obtained for analysis. Series information, tooth number and the plane reconstructed were stored. The images generated were saved on a CD-ROM together with the visualization software (Syngo FastView). Images were analyzed by a previously calibrated blinded, radiologist. Cochran's Q test was conducted separately for each region analyzed followed by pair-wise comparison by the McNemar test (p=0.05).
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was observed in the diagnosis of simulated resorption between the apical, middle, and coronal thirds. When the axial plane was assessed separately, diagnoses were statistically different (p<0.05) among the three root thirds. The apical third differed significantly (p<0.05) from the cervical and middle thirds. Diagnostic errors were more often observed in the apical third compared to the cervical and middle thirds. Mid-sized cavities revealed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between planes, irrespective of the third in which the resorptions were located.
CONCLUSION: When tomographic sections are requested for the diagnosis of buccal or lingual external root resorption, sagittal sections afford the best image characterization of the resorption process.