IADR Abstract Archives
Incidental Findings in Limited Field of View CBCT
Objectives: We identifed the type and prevalence of incidental findings (IFs) detected in limited field-of-view (FoV) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans relative to those published for large FoV CBCT.
Methods: CBCT scans (3D Accuitomo 170, J. Morita USA, Inc, Irvine, CA) from the last 1,000 individuals presenting at MWUDI were searched to obtain those using 80um voxel with a FoV of 4cmX4cm. Accompanying radiology reports were created by two Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists. 537 limited FoV reports were identified and IFs amongst these were categorized based on etiology or nature of concern: anatomical implant placement concerns; dental developmental anomalies; soft tissue calcifications; and endodontic; periodontic; or non-odontogenic pathosis.
Results: 1297 IFs were detected (2.4 per scan). Periodontal concerns were most common (48% of scans), followed by anatomical placement considerations (27%), endodontic concerns (17%), dental developmental anomalies (9%), non-odontogenic pathosis (7%), and soft tissue calcifications (2%). Results were compared to published large FoV data using Student’s T-test, or χ2 or Fisher’s exact test.
Mean age was higher in individuals with periodontic (p-value < 0.01) or multiple (p-value < 0.01) IFs. Females had higher rates of dental developmental anomalies (p-value = 0.015) and endodontic concerns (p-value = 0.0282). Mandibular bone had higher rates of bone pathosis (p-value < 0.0001) and posterior regions had higher rates of endodontic (p-value < 0.001) pathosis.
Conclusions: IF rates are consistent between large and limited FoV CBCT, suggesting that areas beyond the region of interest require proper interpretation. Restricting FoV size (e.g., for implant planning) does not eliminate all liability for the doctor that reads the scan. As expected, periodontal IFs were associated with age. These results should be considered when evaluating mandibular bone resorption and non-odontogenic disease due to increased IF rates. Practitioners must realize that limited FoV CBCT scan contribute to comprehensive patient care.
Methods: CBCT scans (3D Accuitomo 170, J. Morita USA, Inc, Irvine, CA) from the last 1,000 individuals presenting at MWUDI were searched to obtain those using 80um voxel with a FoV of 4cmX4cm. Accompanying radiology reports were created by two Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists. 537 limited FoV reports were identified and IFs amongst these were categorized based on etiology or nature of concern: anatomical implant placement concerns; dental developmental anomalies; soft tissue calcifications; and endodontic; periodontic; or non-odontogenic pathosis.
Results: 1297 IFs were detected (2.4 per scan). Periodontal concerns were most common (48% of scans), followed by anatomical placement considerations (27%), endodontic concerns (17%), dental developmental anomalies (9%), non-odontogenic pathosis (7%), and soft tissue calcifications (2%). Results were compared to published large FoV data using Student’s T-test, or χ2 or Fisher’s exact test.
Mean age was higher in individuals with periodontic (p-value < 0.01) or multiple (p-value < 0.01) IFs. Females had higher rates of dental developmental anomalies (p-value = 0.015) and endodontic concerns (p-value = 0.0282). Mandibular bone had higher rates of bone pathosis (p-value < 0.0001) and posterior regions had higher rates of endodontic (p-value < 0.001) pathosis.
Conclusions: IF rates are consistent between large and limited FoV CBCT, suggesting that areas beyond the region of interest require proper interpretation. Restricting FoV size (e.g., for implant planning) does not eliminate all liability for the doctor that reads the scan. As expected, periodontal IFs were associated with age. These results should be considered when evaluating mandibular bone resorption and non-odontogenic disease due to increased IF rates. Practitioners must realize that limited FoV CBCT scan contribute to comprehensive patient care.