Objective
The aim of this cross-sectional accuracy study was to compare panoramic reconstruction
(PR) and multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images, which are used to establish the
prognosis for impacted mandibular third molars in relation to professional decision
making.
Study Design
Images of 10 patients who had undergone cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination
were selected, resulting in 2 distinct groups of images, with 10 in each group: PR
and MPR. To check prognostic accuracy, 2 images from each group were randomly selected
and reinserted into the sample, totaling 24 images. A questionnaire was completed
by 54 professionals: 27 orthodontists and 27 oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFSs).
Data were evaluated by using the χ2 and McNemar's tests and Kappa statistics at P < .05.
Results
There were no statistically significant differences when isolated PR images were compared
with MPR images by orthodontists (P = .72) or OMFSs (P = .45). However, there were significant differences in the professional decision
regarding the prognosis for impacted teeth, where OMFSs indicated the need for more
extractions compared with orthodontists (P < .0001).
Conclusions
There are no differences between PR and multiplanar CBCT images with regard to the
determination of the prognosis for impacted mandibular third molars. However, there
was a difference in the decision making between the different specialties.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral RadiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137: 590-597
- Three-dimensional localization of impacted teeth using magnetic resonance imaging.Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14: 169-176
- Third molars and orthodontic diagnosis.J Clin Orthod. 1976; 10: 272-281
- A habilidade de ortodontistas e cirurgiões bucomaxilofaciais em predizer a erupção espontânea dos terceiros molares inferiores através de radiografias panorâmicas seriadas.Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém (PA), Brazil2016
- The ability of orthodontists and oral/maxillofacial surgeons to predict eruption of lower third molar.Prog Orthod. 2016; 17: 21
- Somos capazes de predizer a erupção dos terceiros molares inferiores? Um estudo longitudinal de casos de impactação ou erupção espontânea.Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém (PA), Brazil2018
- Is there justification for prophylactic extraction of third molars? A systematic review.Braz Oral Res. 2013; 27: 183-188
- Extraction of mandibular third molars: proposal of a new scale of difficulty.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 55: 952-957
- Impacted Mandibular Third Molar.American Medical Book, St. Louis, MO1926
- Accuracy of angular measurements and assessment of distortion in the mandibular third molar region on panoramic radiographs.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 111: 508-516
- Eruption of third molars: relationship to inclination of adjacent molars.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125: 200-202
- A survey of 3,874 routine full-mouth radiographs. I. A study of retained roots and teeth.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1961; 14: 916-924
- How often do asymptomatic, disease-free third molars need to be removed?.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: S41-S47
- Is there pathology associated with asymptomatic third molars?.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70: S15-S19
- Predictors of third molar impaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent Res. 2016; 95: 267-276
- Third molars: to extract or not to extract?.Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20: 17-18
- Guidance on the Removal of Wisdom Teeth.National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London, UK2000
- Third molar removal: an overview of indications, imaging, evaluation, and assessment of risk.Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007; 19: 1-13
- Extraction versus nonextraction management of third molars.Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2007; 19: 15-21
- Development of a compact computed tomographic apparatus for dental use.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1999; 28: 245-248
- Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice.J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72: 75-80
- Computer-assisted simulations in orthodontic diagnosis and the application of a new cone beam X-ray computed tomography.Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003; 6 (179-182): 95-101
- Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): understanding this new imaging diagnostic method with promising application in orthodontics.R Dental Press Ortodon Ortop Facial. 2007; 12 ([in Portuguese]): 139-156
- Impact of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) on diagnostic thinking in endodontics of posterior teeth: a before-after study.J Dent. 2016; 53: 57-63
- Clinical indications and perspectives for intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103: 412-417
- The use of cone beam CT for the removal of wisdom teeth changes the surgical approach compared with panoramic radiography: a pilot study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 834-839
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 25, 2020
Accepted:
July 11,
2020
Received in revised form:
June 18,
2020
Received:
April 23,
2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
