Literature DB >> 33125282

Head motion and perception of discomfort by young children during simulated CBCT examinations.

Rubens Spin-Neto1, Louise Hauge Matzen1, Louise Hermann1, João Marcus de Carvalho E Silva Fuglsig1, Ann Wenzel1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency and characteristics (number, complexity, and distance) of head movements, and the perception of discomfort during simulated CBCT examinations in children, considering units with different patient positioning method and head immobilization device combinations.
METHODS: Forty children (20 boys/20 girls, age range 10-14 years) were video-recorded during simulated CBCT examinations. Children were randomly allocated to a sequence of five CBCT units: Newtom-5G, Orthophos-SL, Cranex-3Dx (patient standing/sitting), and X1. The child scored his/her discomfort perception (visual scale) and the preferred/ill-favored unit. Three observers scored the videos (20% in duplicate): child movement (yes/no), number (<3/≥3/continuous), complexity (uniplanar/multiplanar) and distance (<3 mm/≥3 mm). κ statistics provided intra-/interobserver reproducibility. Severe/extreme motion was defined based on movement characteristics. Chi-square tests assessed the frequency differences of severe/extreme motion among the units, age and operator. Logistic regression analyses with severe/extreme motion as outcome were performed.
RESULTS: The range of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility for movement observation was 0.78-0.89 and 0.61-0.64, respectively. Between 60% (Newtom-5G) and 100% (X1) of children moved during the examination. Severe/extreme motion was significantly related to unit and age. There was significantly less severe/extreme motion, when the child was in the supine position with a foam headrest as head support. The younger the child, the higher the risk for severe/extreme motion. The majority of the children preferred the unit with the supine position and a foam headrest.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of severe and extreme motion was associated with the unit's patient positioning method and head immobilization devices combined, and child age.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cone beam CT; Patient monitoring; Patient movement

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33125282      PMCID: PMC7923072          DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20200445

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


  29 in total

1.  Reduction of the negative influence of patient motion on quality of CBCT scan.

Authors:  Tomáš Hanzelka; René Foltán; Edita Horká; Jiří Sedý
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 1.538

2.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

Authors:  Terry K Koo; Mae Y Li
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-03-31

Review 3.  Etiology of maxillary canine impaction: a review.

Authors:  Adrian Becker; Stella Chaushu
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  Through the quality kaleidoscope: reflections on research in dentomaxillofacial imaging.

Authors:  Madeleine Rohlin; Keith Horner; Christina Lindh; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 2.419

5.  Detection of patient movement during CBCT examination using video observation compared with an accelerometer-gyroscope tracking system.

Authors:  Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise H Matzen; Lars Schropp; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 2.419

6.  Factors affecting patient movement and re-exposure in cone beam computed tomography examination.

Authors:  Rubens Spin-Neto; Louise Hauge Matzen; Lars Schropp; Erik Gotfredsen; Ann Wenzel
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol       Date:  2015-02-03

7.  Canine impactions: incidence and management.

Authors:  Jason Cooke; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Radiographic observers' ability to recognize patient movement during cone beam CT.

Authors:  R Spin-Neto; L H Matzen; L Schropp; G S Liedke; E Gotfredsen; A Wenzel
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 2.419

9.  Objective assessment of the combined effect of exomass-related- and motion artefacts in cone beam CT.

Authors:  Matheus Lima Oliveira; Amanda P Candemil; Deborah Q Freitas; Francisco Haiter-Neto; Ann Wenzel; Rubens Spin-Neto
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 2.419

10.  Electronic and paper versions of a faces pain intensity scale: concordance and preference in hospitalized children.

Authors:  Chantal Wood; Carl L von Baeyer; Sylvain Falinower; Dominique Moyse; Daniel Annequin; Valérie Legout
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 2.125

View more
  1 in total

1.  Ultra-low-dose CBCT scan: rational map for ear surgery.

Authors:  Pekka Tamminen; Jorma Järnstedt; Antti Lehtinen; Jura Numminen; Lauri Lehtimäki; Markus Rautiainen; Ilkka Kivekäs
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-09-16       Impact factor: 3.236

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.