Comparison of clinical values in decision making between cone beam CT and conventional approach in furcation involvement of maxillary molar
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.08.006
- VernacularTitle: 口腔颌面锥形束CT对上颌磨牙根分叉病变治疗决策的影响
- Author:
Zhiling ZHANG
1
;
Yan JIA
2
;
Yan ZHANG
2
;
Ling XIAO
1
;
Xinyue LI
2
;
Gang LI
3
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Tianjin Stomatology Hospital & Hospital of Stomatology, NanKai University, Tianjin 300041, China
2. Department of Periodontology, Tianjin Stomatology Hospital & Hospital of Stomatology, NanKai University, Tianjin 300041, China
3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Cone-beam computed tomography;
Furcation defect;
Molar
- From:Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2018;53(8):529-532
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and conventional approach (clinical probing and periapical radiograph) in assessing furcation involvement (FI) of maxillary molars and making treatment decisions.
Methods:Thirty-two subjects were selected from the pool of patients at the Department of Periodontology, Tianjin Stomatology Hospital & Hospital of Stomatology, NanKai University from January 2015 to December 2016. All the patients have a diagnosis of generalized chronic periodontitis. Ninety-five maxillary molar with FI from the radiography database were analysed. Two doctors used conventional approach and CBCT images to assess FI and make treatment decision respectively. If the clinical and radiographic findings did not clearly indicate a distinct periodontal therapy, two treatment options were considered.
Results:There was statistical difference of the FI diagnosis between traditional group and CBCT group assessment of the 95 molars (P=0.000). Thirty-five maxillary molars (36.8%, 17 patients) got two treatment recommendations by conventional approach but 7 (7.4%, 5 patients) by CBCT-based approach. When with the less invasive treatment recommendation, there was statistical difference between conventional approach and CBCT-based approach (P=0.001). An agreement was observed in 63.2% (60/95) of the teeth, while in another 29.5% (28/95) the CBCT-based treatment decision was more invasive than the conventional approach. When with the more invasive treatment recommendation, there was also statistical difference between two approaches (P=0.045). An agreement was observed in 86.3% (82/95) of the teeth, while in another 3.2% (3/95) the CBCT-based treatment decision was more invasive than the conventional approach.
Conclusions:CBCT images of maxillary molars may provide detailed information of FI and a reliable basis for treatment decision.
