|
|
|
|
LEADER |
03683nam a2200745Ia 4500 |
001 |
10.2319-103117-739.1 |
008 |
220706s2018 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 00033219 (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Correlation between panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in assessing maxillary impacted canines
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Allen Press Inc.
|c 2018
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.2319/103117-739.1
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a Objective: To determine the usefulness of panoramic radiographs in determining the labio-palatal position of maxillary impacted canines (MICs) and root resorption of permanent incisors on conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) in correlation with the mesiodistal position of MICs on panoramic radiographs. Materials and Methods: This retrospective radiographic study reviewed 64 patients with 86 MICs. Subjects were divided into two groups: group I (, 15 years old) and group II (.15 years old). The mesiodistal position of the MICs' cusp tips was classified into five sectors on panoramic radiographs. The labio-palatal position of the MICs and root resorption of permanent incisors were evaluated on CBCT. The statistical correlation between panoramic radiograph and CBCT results was examined using the chi-square test and the Fisher exact test. Results: Most of the positions of MICs were palatal (67%), followed by labial (28%) and midalveolus (5%; P, .05). Labial positioned MICs on CBCT were more frequent in panoramic sector 1, mid-alveolus MICs were more common in sector 2, and palatally positioned MICs were more frequent in sectors 3, 4, and 5. The association between sectors of the MICs on panoramic images and the labio-palatal position of the MICs on CBCT was statistically significant (P, .001). Root resorption of adjacent incisors showed a significant difference according to sector location (P, .01) and was mainly found in sectors 4 and 5. Conclusions: This study showed that the labio-palatal position of MICs and resorption of permanent incisors might be predicted using sector location on panoramic radiographs. (Angle Orthod. 2018;88:384-389.) © 2018 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a adolescent
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Adolescent
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a adult
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Adult
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a age
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Age Factors
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a aged
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Aged
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a canine tooth
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a CBCT
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a child
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Child
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a cone beam computed tomography
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Cuspid
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a diagnostic imaging
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a female
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Female
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a human
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Humans
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Impactions
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a incisor
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Incisor
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a male
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Male
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a maxilla
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Maxilla
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Maxillary canines
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a middle aged
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Middle Aged
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a observer variation
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Observer Variation
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a panoramic radiography
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Pantomogram
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Radiography, Dental
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Radiography, Panoramic
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Resorption
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Retrospective Studies
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a retrospective study
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Root Resorption
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a sex factor
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Sex Factors
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a tooth disease
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a tooth radiography
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Tooth, Impacted
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a young adult
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Young Adult
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Fishman, L.S.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Ngo, C.T.T.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Rossouw, P.E.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Said, O.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Wang, H.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Angle Orthodontist
|