Archives of Craniofacial Surgery (대한두개안면성형외과학회지)

Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (대한두개안면성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The agreement of panoramic radiography with cone-beam computed tomography in classifying impacted lower third molars: a systematic review

  • Husni Mubarak (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hasanuddin University) ;
  • Andi Tajrin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hasanuddin University) ;
  • Nurwaida Nurwaida (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Hasanuddin University)
  • Received : 2024.05.29
  • Accepted : 2024.10.04
  • Published : 2024.12.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: This systematic review aimed to determine whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) yield consistent results in determining the degree of impacted lower third molar teeth based on existing classification parameters. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PLOS One, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additionally, a manual search was also carried out. There were no restrictions on publication dates, allowing a broader scope of literature. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, all studies that compared the outcomes of CBCT and panoramic images concerning the position of impacted teeth, according to the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications, were included. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One study used the Pell & Gregory classification to assess differences, finding a significant result (p<0.001). Two studies used both the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications. In these assessments, one study found no significant differences in the Winter classification (p=1.000) or the Pell & Gregory assessment (p=0.500). However, another study identified significant differences using both the winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications (p<0.001). One study conducted an assessment using only Winter classification and found no significant differences between PR and CBCT (p>0.05). Conclusion: There are inter-modality differences in the agreement concerning the degree of impaction of the third molar when using CBCT compared with panoramic imaging across various classification levels. Improved assessment methods are necessary to determine the most appropriate imaging modality for therapeutic management.

Keywords

References

  1. Ryalat S, AlRyalat SA, Kassob Z, Hassona Y, Al-Shayyab MH, Sawair F. Impaction of lower third molars and their association with age: radiological perspectives. BMC Oral Health 2018;18:58.
  2. Reia VC, de Toledo Telles-Araujo G, Peralta-Mamani M, Biancardi MR, Rubira CM, Rubira-Bullen IR. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT compared to panoramic radiography in predicting IAN exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25:4721-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03942-4
  3. Brasil DM, Nascimento EH, Gaeta-Araujo H, Oliveira-Santos C, Maria de Almeida S. Is panoramic imaging equivalent to cone-beam computed tomography for classifying impacted lower third molars? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1968-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.03.041
  4. Stacchi C, Daugela P, Berton F, Lombardi T, Andriulionis T, Perinetti G, et al. A classification for assessing surgical difficulty in the extraction of mandibular impacted third molars: description and clinical validation. Quintessence Int 2018;49:745-53.
  5. Issrani R, Prabhu N, Sghaireen M, Alshubrmi HR, Alanazi AM, Alkhalaf ZA, et al. Comparison of digital OPG and CBCT in assessment of risk factors associated with inferior nerve injury during mandibular third molar surgery. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11:2282.
  6. Fragiskos FD. Oral surgery. Springer; 2007.
  7. Bushberg JT. Eleventh annual Warren K. Sinclair keynote address: science, radiation protection and NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future. Health Phys 2015;108:115-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000228
  8. Eslami E, Barkhordar H, Abramovitch K, Kim J, Masoud MI. Cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional radiography in visualization of maxillary impacted-canine localization: a systematic review of comparative studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:248-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.018
  9. Rafetto LK, Synan W. Surgical management of third molars. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2012;20:197-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2012.07.002
  10. Khojastepour L, Khaghaninejad MS, Hasanshahi R, Forghani M, Ahrari F. Does the Winter or Pell and Gregory classification system indicate the apical position of impacted mandibular third molars? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:2222.
  11. Mendonca LM, Gaeta-Araujo H, Cruvinel PB, Tosin IW, Azenha MR, Ferraz EP, et al. Can diagnostic changes caused by cone beam computed tomography alter the clinical decision in impacted lower third molar treatment plan? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2021;50:20200412.
  12. Freire BB, Nascimento EH, Vasconcelos KF, Freitas DQ, Haiter-Neto F. Radiologic assessment of mandibular third molars: an ex vivo comparative study of panoramic radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography, and cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019; 128:166-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.11.002
  13. Dias MJ, Franco A, Junqueira JL, Fayad FT, Pereira PH, Oenning AC. Marginal bone loss in the second molar related to impacted mandibular third molars: comparison between panoramic images and cone beam computed tomography. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2020;25:e395-402. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.23443
  14. Cederhag J, Lundegren N, Alstergren P, Shi XQ, Hellen-Halme K. Evaluation of panoramic radiographs in relation to the mandibular third molar and to incidental findings in an adult population. Eur J Dent 2021;15:266-72. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721294
  15. Hasani A, Ahmadi Moshtaghin F, Roohi P, Rakhshan V. Diagnostic value of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in predicting mandibular nerve exposure during third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46: 230-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.10.003
  16. Guerrero ME, Nackaerts O, Beinsberger J, Horner K, Schoenaers J, Jacobs R, et al. Inferior alveolar nerve sensory disturbance after impacted mandibular third molar evaluation using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography: a pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:2264-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.015
  17. Saha N, Kedarnath NS, Singh M. Orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography for the relation of inferior alveolar nerve to the impacted mandibular third molars. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2019;9:4-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_138_18
  18. Hauge Matzen L, Christensen J, Hintze H, Schou S, Wenzel A. Diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography, stereo-scanography and cone beam CT for assessment of mandibular third molars before surgery. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1391-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.764574
  19. Smailiene D, Trakiniene G, Beinoriene A, Tutliene U. Relationship between the position of impacted third molars and external root resorption of adjacent second molars: a retrospective CBCT study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55:305.
  20. Cederhag J, Truedsson A, Alstergren P, Shi XQ, Hellen-Halme K. Radiographic imaging in relation to the mandibular third molar: a survey among oral surgeons in Sweden. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:2073-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04189-9
  21. Serrant PS, McIntyre GT, Thomson DJ. Localization of ectopic maxillary canines: is CBCT more accurate than conventional horizontal or vertical parallax? J Orthod 2014;41:13-8. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000076