Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015
Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography and reasons for referral by dental practitioners in indore city (m.p).
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.
Warhekar Shilpa, Nagarajappa Sandesh, Dasar Prahlad L, Warhekar Ashish M, Parihar Ajay, Phulambrikar Tushar, Airen Bhuvnesh, Jain Deepika
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cone beam computed tomography is a new diagnostic innovation to dental imaging. Despite the use of CBCT in oral and maxillofacial imaging, reports on its use either by individual practitioners or referral patterns to CBCT centers is lacking. Hence, a study was conducted to determine incidental findings on CBCT and reasons for referral by dental practitioners in Indore city.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 795 records that were referred for CBCT imaging at Institutional and Oracal CBCT Centre, Indore was undertaken. Referrals from both within and outside institution, as well as from private practitioners were considered. The reason for CBCT referral, provision diagnosis, final diagnosis and any incidental diagnosis were recorded.
RESULTS: This retrospective chart audit revealed that 56.7 % were male and 43.3% were females. Greatest source of patients was referred by oral surgeons (21.9%) followed by oral and maxillofacial radiologist (14.2%) and prosthodontist (9.3%). The most common reason for referral was for implant analysis (24.2%) and the most common incidental finding diagnosed by CBCT was oral malignancies.
CONCLUSION: In Institutional set-up, CBCT referrals were mostly for the reason of planning implant placement followed by trauma whereas private practitioners used CBCT mostly for implant placement followed by impaction. CBCT was being utilized more by Oral surgeons in private sector whereas it in an Institutional setup majority of referrals from Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology. Findings that were most commonly diagnosed incidentally on CBCT were Orofacial malignancies followed maxillary sinus pathologies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 795 records that were referred for CBCT imaging at Institutional and Oracal CBCT Centre, Indore was undertaken. Referrals from both within and outside institution, as well as from private practitioners were considered. The reason for CBCT referral, provision diagnosis, final diagnosis and any incidental diagnosis were recorded.
RESULTS: This retrospective chart audit revealed that 56.7 % were male and 43.3% were females. Greatest source of patients was referred by oral surgeons (21.9%) followed by oral and maxillofacial radiologist (14.2%) and prosthodontist (9.3%). The most common reason for referral was for implant analysis (24.2%) and the most common incidental finding diagnosed by CBCT was oral malignancies.
CONCLUSION: In Institutional set-up, CBCT referrals were mostly for the reason of planning implant placement followed by trauma whereas private practitioners used CBCT mostly for implant placement followed by impaction. CBCT was being utilized more by Oral surgeons in private sector whereas it in an Institutional setup majority of referrals from Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology. Findings that were most commonly diagnosed incidentally on CBCT were Orofacial malignancies followed maxillary sinus pathologies.