Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2024
A retrospective clinical study to compare the ability of cone-beam computed tomographic images and periapical radiographs to reveal cracked teeth, split teeth, and teeth with vertical root fractures.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Mareque-Bueno Maria Soledad, Nagendrababu Venkateshbabu, Dummer Paul M H, Ruíz-Piñón Manuel, Arias-Moliz Teresa, Uroz-Torres David, Garrido-Parada Sara, Martín-Biedma Benjamín, Castelo-Baz Pablo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This retrospective clinical study aimed to compare the sensitivity of cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and periapical (PA) radiographs to reveal cracked teeth, split teeth, and teeth with vertical root fractures (VRFs).
METHODS: The authors included 98 patients (98 teeth) diagnosed with a longitudinal tooth fracture (LTF) (cracked tooth, split tooth, VRF) through direct visualization after extraction and with comprehensive clinical and radiographic records. They collected demographic, clinical, and radiographic data. The authors evaluated PA radiographs and CBCT images to identify fractures, fracture lines, and the different patterns of bone loss associated with these teeth. They used the McNemar test to compare PA radiographs and CBCT scans when assessing bone loss. They used the Fisher test to determine statistical relationships between fracture types and demographic, clinical, and radiologic traits. They used an analysis of variance test to compare patient age with fracture types.
RESULTS: CBCT images were significantly more effective (P < .05) in detecting bone loss patterns associated with LTFs than with PA radiographs, with 71% of cases detected via CBCT images compared with 42% via radiographs. Mean age was significantly greater (P < .05) in patients with teeth with VRFs than in patients with split teeth. A significant relationship was observed between the type of fracture and the following variables: root canal treatment (split, VRF, P = .002), deep probing depth (≥ 5 mm) (VRF, P = .026), and having more than 8 teeth extracted from the mouth (VRF, P = .032). Overall, there was a significant difference (P < .001) between the visualization of fracture lines (45% on PA radiographs, 65% on CBCT images).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT scans provided more information on LTFs than PA radiographs, particularly in the identification of periradicular bone changes.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: CBCT imaging can assist in making the clinical diagnosis of LTFs through observation of bone loss patterns, providing more information than PA radiographs.
METHODS: The authors included 98 patients (98 teeth) diagnosed with a longitudinal tooth fracture (LTF) (cracked tooth, split tooth, VRF) through direct visualization after extraction and with comprehensive clinical and radiographic records. They collected demographic, clinical, and radiographic data. The authors evaluated PA radiographs and CBCT images to identify fractures, fracture lines, and the different patterns of bone loss associated with these teeth. They used the McNemar test to compare PA radiographs and CBCT scans when assessing bone loss. They used the Fisher test to determine statistical relationships between fracture types and demographic, clinical, and radiologic traits. They used an analysis of variance test to compare patient age with fracture types.
RESULTS: CBCT images were significantly more effective (P < .05) in detecting bone loss patterns associated with LTFs than with PA radiographs, with 71% of cases detected via CBCT images compared with 42% via radiographs. Mean age was significantly greater (P < .05) in patients with teeth with VRFs than in patients with split teeth. A significant relationship was observed between the type of fracture and the following variables: root canal treatment (split, VRF, P = .002), deep probing depth (≥ 5 mm) (VRF, P = .026), and having more than 8 teeth extracted from the mouth (VRF, P = .032). Overall, there was a significant difference (P < .001) between the visualization of fracture lines (45% on PA radiographs, 65% on CBCT images).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT scans provided more information on LTFs than PA radiographs, particularly in the identification of periradicular bone changes.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: CBCT imaging can assist in making the clinical diagnosis of LTFs through observation of bone loss patterns, providing more information than PA radiographs.