Clinical advances in periodontics · 2016
Incidental Findings From Cone-Beam Computed Tomography During Implant Therapy.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Maska Bartosz, Othman Abdullah, Behdin Shabnam, Benavides Erika, Kapila Yvonne
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This report reviews relevant literature on foreign bodies identified with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and documents a rare case of a foreign body that was serendipitously identified during routine implant treatment planning.
CASE PRESENTATION: The literature shows a frequent occurrence of incidental findings with CBCT. This case documents incidental findings in the maxillary sinus and external auditory canal that were identified during routine CBCT used for implant treatment planning. The finding in the maxillary sinus was diagnosed as a mucous retention pseudocyst that did not require treatment. The finding in the external auditory canal was diagnosed as a foreign body (remnant of a cotton swab). Removal of the foreign body was prompted because of its presumed association with chronic headaches that were unresolved. Removal of the foreign body alleviated the chronic headaches, and implant placement proceeded uneventfully.
CONCLUSIONS: This review and case underscore the importance of a thorough review of the entire tomographic image volume. Using advanced technology for treatment creates new responsibilities and places more liability on providers not to overlook findings that may be significant to the patient's health.
CASE PRESENTATION: The literature shows a frequent occurrence of incidental findings with CBCT. This case documents incidental findings in the maxillary sinus and external auditory canal that were identified during routine CBCT used for implant treatment planning. The finding in the maxillary sinus was diagnosed as a mucous retention pseudocyst that did not require treatment. The finding in the external auditory canal was diagnosed as a foreign body (remnant of a cotton swab). Removal of the foreign body was prompted because of its presumed association with chronic headaches that were unresolved. Removal of the foreign body alleviated the chronic headaches, and implant placement proceeded uneventfully.
CONCLUSIONS: This review and case underscore the importance of a thorough review of the entire tomographic image volume. Using advanced technology for treatment creates new responsibilities and places more liability on providers not to overlook findings that may be significant to the patient's health.