IADR Abstract Archives
Cone-Beam-Computed-Tomography and Conventional-Radiographs in Maxillary-Impacted-Canine Localization and Root-Resorption Detection: Systematic-Review
Objectives: The aim is to systematically review the available literature on comparison between Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and conventional radiographs in localization of maxillary impacted canines, root resorption detection of lateral incisors and their effect on the treatment of choice.
Methods: Comprehensive electronic search through PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science, and Chochrane Library databases and manual search up to 17 September 2014 was conducted by two reviewers. The review included any study design which compared CBCT with conventional radiographs to find any information deviation gained by the two modalities. Quality of studies that met selection criteria were assessed by Effective-Public Health-Practice-Project (EPHPP).
Results: Six studies evaluating various outcome variables for canine localization and meeting inclusion criteria were finally extracted. The outcomes are mainly categorized in: labiopalatal position, vertical position, mesiodistal position, angular measurements and the teeth relation to surrounding structures. Most assessed outcome variables are significantly different between the CBCT and conventional imaging. There is also statistically significant difference with large range of kappa agreement from 0.3 to 0.65 (fair to substantial agreement) in lateral incisors root resorption detection between these modalities. Three out of six included studies assessed therapeutic efficacy of CBCT and conventional radiographs. 70% to 73% agreement with broad range of kappa agreement 0.36 to 0.72 (fair to substantial agreement) between the imaging modalities was revealed. It is also reported statistically significant difference between the treatment of choice through them. However, the quality of studies was limited to be of “weak” or “moderate” quality. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneous of results.
Conclusions: The information obtained from CBCT and conventional radiographs is deviant, and treatment of choice might be affected thorough CBCT imaging.
Methods: Comprehensive electronic search through PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science, and Chochrane Library databases and manual search up to 17 September 2014 was conducted by two reviewers. The review included any study design which compared CBCT with conventional radiographs to find any information deviation gained by the two modalities. Quality of studies that met selection criteria were assessed by Effective-Public Health-Practice-Project (EPHPP).
Results: Six studies evaluating various outcome variables for canine localization and meeting inclusion criteria were finally extracted. The outcomes are mainly categorized in: labiopalatal position, vertical position, mesiodistal position, angular measurements and the teeth relation to surrounding structures. Most assessed outcome variables are significantly different between the CBCT and conventional imaging. There is also statistically significant difference with large range of kappa agreement from 0.3 to 0.65 (fair to substantial agreement) in lateral incisors root resorption detection between these modalities. Three out of six included studies assessed therapeutic efficacy of CBCT and conventional radiographs. 70% to 73% agreement with broad range of kappa agreement 0.36 to 0.72 (fair to substantial agreement) between the imaging modalities was revealed. It is also reported statistically significant difference between the treatment of choice through them. However, the quality of studies was limited to be of “weak” or “moderate” quality. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneous of results.
Conclusions: The information obtained from CBCT and conventional radiographs is deviant, and treatment of choice might be affected thorough CBCT imaging.