OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess to what extent cone beam CT (CBCT) used in accordance with current European Commission guidelines in a normal clinical setting has an impact on therapeutic decisions in a population referred for endodontic problems. METHODS: The study includes data of consecutively examined patients collected from October 2011 to December 2012. From 2 different endodontic specialist clinics, 57 patients were referred for a CBCT examination using criteria in accordance with current European guidelines. The CBCT examinations were performed using similar equipment and standardized among clinics. After a thorough clinical examination, but before CBCT, the examiner made a preliminary therapy plan which was recorded. After the CBCT examination, the same examiner made a new therapy plan. Therapy plans both before and after the CBCT examination were plotted for 53 patients and 81 teeth. As four patients had incomplete protocols, they were not included in the final analysis. RESULTS: 4% of the patients referred to endodontic clinics during the study period were examined with CBCT. The most frequent reason for referral to CBCT examination was to differentiate pathology from normal anatomy, this was the case in 24 patients (45% of the cases). The primary outcome was therapy plan changes that could be attributed to CBCT examination. There were changes in 28 patients (53%). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT has a significant impact on therapeutic decision efficacy in endodontics when used in concordance with the current European Commission guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess to what extent cone beam CT (CBCT) used in accordance with current European Commission guidelines in a normal clinical setting has an impact on therapeutic decisions in a population referred for endodontic problems. METHODS: The study includes data of consecutively examined patients collected from October 2011 to December 2012. From 2 different endodontic specialist clinics, 57 patients were referred for a CBCT examination using criteria in accordance with current European guidelines. The CBCT examinations were performed using similar equipment and standardized among clinics. After a thorough clinical examination, but before CBCT, the examiner made a preliminary therapy plan which was recorded. After the CBCT examination, the same examiner made a new therapy plan. Therapy plans both before and after the CBCT examination were plotted for 53 patients and 81 teeth. As four patients had incomplete protocols, they were not included in the final analysis. RESULTS: 4% of the patients referred to endodontic clinics during the study period were examined with CBCT. The most frequent reason for referral to CBCT examination was to differentiate pathology from normal anatomy, this was the case in 24 patients (45% of the cases). The primary outcome was therapy plan changes that could be attributed to CBCT examination. There were changes in 28 patients (53%). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT has a significant impact on therapeutic decision efficacy in endodontics when used in concordance with the current European Commission guidelines.
Authors: Carlos Estrela; Mike Reis Bueno; Cláudio Rodrigues Leles; Bruno Azevedo; José Ribamar Azevedo Journal: J Endod Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Bassam Hassan; Maria Elissavet Metska; Ahmet Rifat Ozok; Paul van der Stelt; Paul Rudolf Wesselink Journal: J Endod Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Fernando J Mota de Almeida; Sisko Huumonen; Anders Molander; Anders Öhman; Thomas Kvist Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Fernando José Mota de Almeida; Dalya Hassan; Ghada Nasir Abdulrahman; Malin Brundin; Nelly Romani Vestman Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 2.419