Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic efficacy of a modified low-dose acquisition protocol for the preoperative evaluation of mini-implant sites

  • Tadinada, Aditya (Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Marczak, Alana (School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Yadav, Sumit (Division of Orthodontics, University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.06.20
  • Accepted : 2017.08.01
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical mini-implant placement when potential mini-implant sites were scanned using a lower-dose $180^{\circ}$ acquisition protocol versus a conventional $360^{\circ}$ acquisition protocol. Materials and Methods: Ten dentate human skulls were used to provide sites for potential mini-implant placement. The sites were randomly divided into 2 groups: $360^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$ cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) acquisition protocols. A small-volume $180^{\circ}$ CBCT scan and a $360^{\circ}$ CBCT scan of each site were acquired using a Morita Accuitomo-170 CBCT machine and then a mini-implant was placed. A follow-up $360^{\circ}$ CBCT scan was done as a gold standard to evaluate the location of the mini-implant and root perforation. Two raters evaluated the scans. Results: Ninety-eight percent of the mini-implants placed did not perforate any root structure. Two percent of the sites had an appearance suggestive of perforation. On a Likert scale, both raters agreed that their subjective evaluation of the diagnostic quality of the protocols, ability to make and read measurements of the sites, and preferences for the specified diagnostic task were comparable. The Cohen kappa showed high inter-rater and intrarater agreement. Conclusion: In this ex vivo study, we found that the $180^{\circ}$ rotational acquisition was as effective as the conventional $360^{\circ}$ rotational acquisition for the preoperative evaluation of potential mini-implant sites.

Keywords

References

  1. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 803-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025
  2. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 18-29.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025
  3. Bonnick AM, Nalbandian M, Siewe MS. Technological advances in nontraditional orthodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2011; 55: 571-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.012
  4. McCabe P, Kavanagh C. Root perforation associated with the use of a miniscrew implant used for orthodontic anchorage: a case report. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 678-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02022.x
  5. Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 577-95.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.016
  6. Poggio PM, Incorvati C, Velo S, Carano A. ''Safe zones'': a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 191-7.
  7. Brisceno CE, Rossouw PE, Carrillo R, Spears R, Buschang PH. Healing of the roots and surrounding structures after intentional damage with miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 292-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.023
  8. Hembree M, Buschang PH, Carrillo R, Spears R, Rossouw PE. Effects of intentional damage of the roots and surrounding structures with miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 280.e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.017
  9. Cope JB. Temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a paradigm shift. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2004.11.002
  10. Landin M, Jadhav A, Yadav S, Tadinada A. A comparative study between currently used methods and small volume-cone beam tomography for surgical placement of mini implants. Angle Orthod 2015; 85: 446-53. https://doi.org/10.2319/042214-298.1
  11. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 267-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028
  12. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-43. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339
  13. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am 2008; 52: 707-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  14. Lennon S, Patel S, Foschi F, Wilson R, Davies J, Mannocci F. Diagnostic accuracy of limited-volume cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of periapical bone loss: $360^{\circ}$ scans versus $180^{\circ}$ scans. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 1118-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01930.x
  15. Bechara B, McMahan CA, Nasseh I, Geha H, Hayek E, Khawam G, et al. Number of basis images effect on detection of root fractures in endodontically treated teeth using a cone beam computed tomography machine: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 115: 676-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.01.026
  16. Yadav S, Palo L, Mahdian M, Upadhyay M, Tadinada A. Diagnostic accuracy of 2 cone-beam computed tomography protocols for detecting arthritic changes in temporomandibular joints. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 147: 339-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.017

Cited by

  1. Influence of scan mode (partial/full rotations) and FOV size in the formation of artefacts in cone beam CT vol.48, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180340