OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to qualitatively review the effects of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity on buccal mucosal epithelial cells after cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) exposure focusing on DNA damage and cell changes.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in PubMed, Wiley, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar for articles published in the last five years. In vivo studies that analyzed the DNA damage and cell changes on buccal mucosal epithelial cells, before and several days after CBCT exposure were included in this review. This review was prepared according to the PRISMA checklist for systematic review and the risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.

RESULTS

A total of four studies were included in this review. The risk of bias analysis showed that all studies had generally good methodological quality. All the studies used buccal epithelial cells to analyze micronucleus (MN) as a parameter for DNA damage (genotoxicity), three of the studies also analyzed cytotoxicity using pyknotic nucleus and three studies analyzed karyolysis and karyorrhexis. All the studies consistently reported a significant increase in MN frequency, and cytotoxic effect were more evident before and 10-15 days after CBCT exposure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated a significant impact on DNA and cell damage in oral mucosal cells following CBCT examination. The effect of ionizing radiation from CBCT has a more pronounced impact on cell damage than DNA damage.

Cone-beam Computed Tomography ; Epithelial Cells ; Dna Damage ; Dna

PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the changes of jaw bone density around the dental implant after placement using computed tomography scan (CT-Scan). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study consisted of 30 patients who had lost 1 posterior tooth in maxilla or mandible and installed dental implant. The patients took CT-Scan before and after implant placement. Hounsfield Unit (HU) was measured around the implants and evaluated the difference of HU before and after implant installation. RESULTS: The mean HU of jaw bone was 542.436 HU and 764.9 HU before and after implant placement, respectively (p<0.05). The means HUs for male were 632.3 HU and 932.2 HU and those for female 478.2 HU and 645.5 HU before and after implant placement, respectively (p<0.05). Also, the jaw bone with lower density needed longer period for implant procedure and the increased change of HU of jaw bone was less in the cases which needed longer period for osseointegration. CONCLUSION: CT-Scan could be used to assess the change of bone density around dental implants. Bone density around dental implant was increased after placement. The increased rate of bone density could be determined by the quality of jaw bone before implant placement.
Bone Density ; Dental Implants ; Female ; Humans ; Jaw ; Male ; Mandible ; Maxilla ; Retrospective Studies ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Tooth