Literature DB >> 26943178

Radiographic methods used before removal of mandibular third molars among randomly selected general dental clinics.

Louise H Matzen1, Lars B Petersen1, Ann Wenzel1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess radiographic methods and diagnostically sufficient images used before removal of mandibular third molars among randomly selected general dental clinics. Furthermore, to assess factors predisposing for an additional radiographic examination.
METHODS: 2 observers visited 18 randomly selected clinics in Denmark and studied patient files, including radiographs of patients who had their mandibular third molar(s) removed. The radiographic unit and type of receptor were registered. A diagnostically sufficient image was defined as the whole tooth and mandibular canal were displayed in the radiograph (yes/no). Overprojection between the tooth and mandibular canal (yes/no) and patient-reported inferior alveolar nerve sensory disturbances (yes/no) were recorded. Regression analyses tested if overprojection between the third molar and the mandibular canal and an insufficient intraoral image predisposed for additional radiographic examination(s).
RESULTS: 1500 mandibular third molars had been removed; 1090 had intraoral, 468 had panoramic and 67 had CBCT examination. 1000 teeth were removed after an intraoral examination alone, 433 after panoramic examination and 67 after CBCT examination. 90 teeth had an additional examination after intraoral. Overprojection between the tooth and mandibular canal was a significant factor (p < 0.001, odds ratio = 3.56) for an additional examination. 63.7% of the intraoral images were sufficient and 36.3% were insufficient, with no significant difference between images performed with phosphor plates and solid-state sensors (p = 0.6). An insufficient image predisposed for an additional examination (p = 0.008, odds ratio = 1.8) but was only performed in 11% of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Most mandibular third molars were removed based on an intraoral examination although 36.3% were insufficient.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cone beam computed tomography; molar; radiology; third

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26943178      PMCID: PMC4846169          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol        ISSN: 0250-832X            Impact factor:   2.419


  17 in total

1.  Image quality of digital and film radiographs in applications sent to the Dental Insurance Office in Sweden for treatment approval.

Authors:  Kristina Hellén-Halme; Per-Magnus Johansson; Jan Håkansson; Arne Petersson
Journal:  Swed Dent J       Date:  2004

Review 2.  Questionnaire surveys of dentists on radiology.

Authors:  A M Shelley; P Brunton; K Horner
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Trigeminal nerve injuries in relation to the local anaesthesia in mandibular injections.

Authors:  T Renton; D Adey-Viscuso; J G Meechan; Z Yilmaz
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology.

Authors:  John B Ludlow; Marija Ivanovic
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2008-05-27

Review 5.  Preoperative imaging procedures for lower wisdom teeth removal.

Authors:  Lennart Flygare; Anders Ohman
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Influence of cone beam CT on treatment plan before surgical intervention of mandibular third molars and impact of radiographic factors on deciding on coronectomy vs surgical removal.

Authors:  L H Matzen; J Christensen; H Hintze; S Schou; A Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Does computed tomography prevent inferior alveolar nerve injuries caused by lower third molar removal?

Authors:  Gemma Sanmartí-Garcia; Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón; Cosme Gay-Escoda
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Can preoperative imaging help to predict postoperative outcome after wisdom tooth removal? A randomized controlled trial using panoramic radiography versus cone-beam CT.

Authors:  Maria Eugenia Guerrero; Raul Botetano; Jorge Beltran; Keith Horner; Reinhilde Jacobs
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Neurosensoric disturbances after surgical removal of the mandibular third molar based on either panoramic imaging or cone beam CT scanning: A randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Authors:  Lars B Petersen; Michael Vaeth; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 2.419

10.  Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film.

Authors:  Louise Hauge Matzen; Jennifer Christensen; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2009-01-04
View more
  8 in total

1.  Radiographic signs of pathology determining removal of an impacted mandibular third molar assessed in a panoramic image or CBCT.

Authors:  Louise H Matzen; Lars Schropp; Rubens Spin-Neto; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Reliability of Orthopantamogram in Lower Third Molar Surgery: Inter- and Intra-observer Agreement.

Authors:  Prabakaran Sureshkannan; Kuriadom Samthomas; Pethagounder Thangavelu Ravikumar; Annamalai Thangavelu; Rajaram Mohan Karthik; Sambandham Thiruneelakanadan
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2020-08-28

3.  Breakage and displacement of the high-speed hand-piece bur during impacted mandibular third molar extraction: three cases.

Authors:  Kuncai Li; Bingqing Xie; Junliang Chen; Yun He
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 3.747

Review 4.  Cone beam CT imaging of the mandibular third molar: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR).

Authors:  Louise Hauge Matzen; Erwin Berkhout
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Cone beam CT and treatment decision of mandibular third molars: removal vs. coronectomy-a 3-year audit.

Authors:  Louise Hauge Matzen; Julie Suhr Villefrance; Sven Erik Nørholt; Jesper Bak; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Comparison of CBCT and panoramic radiography for the assessment of bone loss and root resorption on the second molar associated with third molar impaction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Larissa Moreira-Souza; Luciana Butini Oliveira; Hugo Gaêta-Araujo; Marcia Almeida-Marques; Luciana Asprino; Anne Caroline Oenning
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Minimum size and positioning of imaging field for CBCT-scans of impacted lower third molars: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Anne-Mari Ilo; Marja Ekholm; Elmira Pakbaznejad Esmaeili; Janna Waltimo-Sirén
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 2.757

8.  Radiographic imaging in relation to the mandibular third molar: a survey among oral surgeons in Sweden.

Authors:  Josefine Cederhag; Anna Truedsson; Per Alstergren; Xie-Qi Shi; Kristina Hellén-Halme
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.573

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.