Anne Caroline Costa Oenning1, Frederico Sampaio Neves2, Phillipe Nogueira Barbosa Alencar3, Rodrigo Freire Prado4, Francisco Carlos Groppo5, Francisco Haiter-Neto6. 1. Researcher, Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: anne.oenning@gmail.com. 2. Researcher, Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. PhD student, Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Student, Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Professor, Division of Pharmacology, Department of Morphology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Professor, Division of Oral Radiology, Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the assessment of external root resorption (ERR) of second molars associated with impacted third molars. In addition, the prevalence of ERR in second molars and the inclinations of the third molars more associated with ERR were investigated in both imaging methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 66 individuals with maxillary and mandibular impacted third molars (n = 188) seen on panoramic radiographs and CBCT images. The presence of ERR on the adjacent second molar was investigated, and the position of the third molar was determined using Winter's classification (vertical, horizontal, mesioangular, distoangular, and transverse). Statistical analysis was performed using the χ(2) test, Fisher exact test, and 2-proportion Z test (the significance level was set at 5%). RESULTS: A significantly greater number of cases of ERR (P < .0001) was diagnosed from CBCT images (n = 43, 22.88%) than panoramic radiographs (n = 10, 5.31%). The agreement between the panoramic radiographs and CBCT scans for diagnosing ERR was 4.3%. Mandibular third molars in mesioangular and horizontal inclinations were more likely to cause resorption of the adjacent teeth. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT should be indicated for the diagnosis of ERR in second molars when direct contact between the mandibular second and third molars has been observed on panoramic radiographs, especially in mesioangular or horizontal impactions. Furthermore, considering the propensity of these teeth to cause ERR in second molars, third molar prophylactic extraction could be suggested.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the assessment of external root resorption (ERR) of second molars associated with impacted third molars. In addition, the prevalence of ERR in second molars and the inclinations of the third molars more associated with ERR were investigated in both imaging methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 66 individuals with maxillary and mandibular impacted third molars (n = 188) seen on panoramic radiographs and CBCT images. The presence of ERR on the adjacent second molar was investigated, and the position of the third molar was determined using Winter's classification (vertical, horizontal, mesioangular, distoangular, and transverse). Statistical analysis was performed using the χ(2) test, Fisher exact test, and 2-proportion Z test (the significance level was set at 5%). RESULTS: A significantly greater number of cases of ERR (P < .0001) was diagnosed from CBCT images (n = 43, 22.88%) than panoramic radiographs (n = 10, 5.31%). The agreement between the panoramic radiographs and CBCT scans for diagnosing ERR was 4.3%. Mandibular third molars in mesioangular and horizontal inclinations were more likely to cause resorption of the adjacent teeth. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT should be indicated for the diagnosis of ERR in second molars when direct contact between the mandibular second and third molars has been observed on panoramic radiographs, especially in mesioangular or horizontal impactions. Furthermore, considering the propensity of these teeth to cause ERR in second molars, third molar prophylactic extraction could be suggested.
Authors: Igor Batista Camargo; João Batista Sobrinho; Emanuel Sávio de Souza Andrade; Joseph E Van Sickels Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 2.750