Incidental maxillary sinus findings in orthodontic patients: a radiographic analysis using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT)

Pazera, Pawel; Bornstein, Michael M.; Pazera, Andrzej; Sendi, Parham; Katsaros, Christos

doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01502.x

Cited by 105 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study carried out by Ritter et al using CBCT showed incidental findings in the maxillary sinus was 56.3% [13]. In other study the occurrence of sinus abnormality was 46.8% [8].This may be referred to the difference in the indications of CBCT scans, which were included in the study, variation in the sampling criteria, and the effect of the climate among differences geographical areas [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other study using sectional exams obtained by CT and MRI reported a prevalence of 12.4% [19]. The variations in the results among different studies may be referred to different imaging modalities, the differences geographical areas, and variation in sample size [13,20]. The opacification of the sinus was ranged from 5% to 8 % as partial and complete opacification of the sinus respectively .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study done by Cha et al, using CBCT as a tool for examinations, the abnormalities found were signs of acute sinusitis (7.5%), retention cysts (3.5%), and polypoid mucosal thickening (2.3%) [7]. In other studies, the prevalence of flat mucosal thickening ranged from 23.7% to 38.1%, polypoid mucosal thickening ranged from 6.5% to19.4%, signs of acute sinusitis was 3.6%, and partial and total opacification were 12% and 7%, respectively [8,9]. In spite of other previous studies reported the detection of incidental abnormalities in CBCT scans in patients referred to as orthodontic and other dental purposes [8], the prevalence of abnormalities is not already known in large samples of scans of patients who underwent to be examined for other oral and dental complains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other studies, the prevalence of flat mucosal thickening ranged from 23.7% to 38.1%, polypoid mucosal thickening ranged from 6.5% to19.4%, signs of acute sinusitis was 3.6%, and partial and total opacification were 12% and 7%, respectively [8,9]. In spite of other previous studies reported the detection of incidental abnormalities in CBCT scans in patients referred to as orthodontic and other dental purposes [8], the prevalence of abnormalities is not already known in large samples of scans of patients who underwent to be examined for other oral and dental complains. The aim of the present study was to detect maxillary sinus abnormalities in asymptomatic patients using the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Maxillary Sinus Abnormalities Detected by Dental Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Eman¹,

Ekta²,

Elkamali³

et al. 2017

Anat Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Maxillary Sinus Abnormalities Detected by Dental Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Eman¹,

Ekta²,

Elkamali³

et al. 2017

Anat Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 Incidental findings in CBCT images of orthodontic patients are common, [16][17][18] and some are critical to patient health. 19 Clinicians who order or perform CBCT for orthodontic patients are responsible for interpreting the entire image volumes, just as they are responsible for interpreting all regions of other radiographic images that they order.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics

Di̇ndaroğlu

Yetkiner

2016

Turk J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of three-dimensional (3D) imaging technology has caused a significant change in the diagnostic approach practiced in dentistry, and in particular, orthodontics. Although conventional imaging methods such as orthopantomography and lateral cephalometric and anteroposterior graphs provide sufficient information in mild to moderate orthodontic anomalies, 3D imaging can be a necessity in severe skeletal anomalies or tooth impactions. Computed tomography (CT) has been frequently used when detailed 3D imaging is necessary despite its relatively high cost, low vertical resolution, and high dose of radiation. In contrast to conventional CT application, the development of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology has had important advantages over the conventional method, such as minimization of the radiation dose, image accuracy, rapid scan time, fewer image artifacts, chair-side image display, and real-time analysis. These advantages have provided dental practitioners the opportunity to benefit more frequently from 3D imaging by relatively diminishing radiation dose considerations, financial burden, and availability, in particular. Therefore, the aim of this review is to highlight the current understanding of CBCT practice in orthodontics and to summarize clinically relevant conditions. Keywords: Cone beam computed tomography, orthodontics, 3D imaging Orthodontics and Radiographic ImagingThe primary aim of orthodontic treatment, and in particular, dentofacial orthopedics, is the correction of malocclusions and facial discrepancies, which are related to dental and skeletal divergences. The treatment plan to achieve this aim is usually based on a patient's main complaint as well as the capabilities of orthodontics. Expected treatment outcomes have esthetic, psychosocial, and functional aspects. Differential diagnosis and treatment planning of such anomalies usually require detailed radiographic imaging of facial components. Conventional radiography and lateral cephalometric imaging, in particular, have formed the cornerstone of the diagnostic procedure for decades. 1 The limitations of such conventional techniques arising from the alteration of three-dimensional (3D) anatomy to two-dimensional images have been pronounced as one of the factors inducing treatment failure and relapse.2 These include magnification differences, geometric distortion, superimposition of anatomic structures, projective displacements of anatomic structures, rotational errors, and linear projective transformations.3 With the advent of computed tomography (CT), and more recently, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), 3D imaging of the anatomy can be achieved, which enables the visualization of complex relations of adjacent tissues. 4 This has been enhanced with the development of computer software technology, which has enabled detailed assessment of these images for varying demands.

show abstract