Type and location of findings in dental panoramic tomographs in 7–12-year-old orthodontic patients

Esmaeili, Elmira Pakbaznejad; Ekholm, Marja; Haukka, Jari; Waltimo‐Sirén, Janna

doi:10.3109/00016357.2015.1112920

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is similar to other studies for incidental findings at the level of the maxillary sinus [9][10]. Regarding developmental dental anomalies, in this study a less prevalence of dental anomalies was found, which was in contrast to the value reported in the meta-analysis of Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, [11] for different populations, in which significant differences among continents and between genders were detected. In the present study, the percentage of incidental findings was little higher in women (51.37%) than in men (48.63%), but the difference was not statistically significant for the presence of findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Radiographical Pathological Incidental Findings before Orthodontic Treatment

2023

JPTCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: Panoramic as well as Cephalometric radiographs, in combination with a clinical examination, are regularly used as an aid and both are considered as a cornerstone for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Due to increasing numbers of patients seeking orthodontic treatment, an increase in incidental findings on diagnostic X-rays is suspected. The objective of this study was to determine the diverse incidental pathological findings observed in radiographs taken before orthodontic treatment in Al Baha Region, Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that investigated 358 panoramic and Cephalometric radiographs who were randomly selected from the Orthodontics Department of Al-Baha University, Faculty of Dentistry Clinic in the period between 2019 and 2022. Only those pathological findings with a possible influence on orthodontic treatment were included and then compared with the patient's record. Results:The most common findings were thickening of mucosal lining in sinus maxillaries, multiple impacted teeth, dental anomalies and periapical inflammatory lesions. The majority of the periapical lesions and radiopacities were found in the mandible. Both the presence and the number of findings per patient increase with age but there is no association with sex P<0.001. Conclusion:The prevalence of incidental findings in this study was low especially those outside dental arches. In most cases, the findings had no consequence for the orthodontic treatment plan and did not require urgent dental management. Careful radiographic examination in addition to use of advanced radiographic diagnostic methods are required to rule out significant pathological findings before orthodontic treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Radiographical Pathological Incidental Findings before Orthodontic Treatment

2023

JPTCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 Our study findings agree with previously published studies that the best timing for the detection of DDAP on PR is around 9 years of age. 13,22 None of the previous studies demonstrated additional cutoff ages after 9. Similar to the previous studies, 16,19,23,24 our study too demonstrated that some anomalies were seen concurrently.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…All of these findings are supported by the previously published studies. 13,16,[21][22][23] Based on the result of this study, there is evidence that there is a higher likelihood (2-4×) of detecting DDAP as the child matures in age (6-8 vs. 15-18 years). This justifies the need for a series of PRs in growing children for the timely detection of DDAP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Our sample size was comparable or higher to previously published studies evaluating the prevalence of DDAPs. 13,16,[21][22][23]28 Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the exact reason for prescribing PRs for the subjects and clinical or histopathologic confirmation of the radiographic findings was not possible, which could be considered as the limitation of the study. Although the PRs were selected using strict criteria to limit magnification or distortion, overlapping of anatomic structures on the PR could be a limiting factor for definitive diagnosis and can be considered as another limitation of the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prescription of panoramic radiographs in children using age‐based prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies

Mohan,

Puranik,

Kaci

et al. 2023

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPanoramic radiographs (PRs) are used in the detection and diagnosis of developmental dental anomalies and pathologies (DDAPs) in children.AimThe primary objective of this observational cohort study was to evaluate the age‐based prevalence of DDAP on PRs, whereas the secondary objective was to determine a threshold age for the detection of DDAP to provide supportive evidence for the prescription of PR in paediatric dental practice.DesignThe study examined diagnostic PRs from 581 subjects aged 6 to 19 years. All PRs were reviewed by experienced, calibrated, masked examiners for the identification or presence of anomalies in size, shape, position, structure, and other developmental anomalies and pathologies (ODAP) of the face–neck region in a standardized condition. The data were statistically analyzed for interpretation.ResultsOverall, 74% (n = 411) of the cohort had at least one anomaly (shape anomaly: 12%, number anomaly: 17%, positional anomaly: 28%, structural anomaly: 0%, and ODAP: 63%). The optimal Youden index cutoff for any anomaly was 9 years. Twelve and 15 years also showed predictive ability.ConclusionThe results suggest that PRs should be prescribed at ages 9, 12, and 15 years for the diagnosis of DDAP.

show abstract

“…Incidental findings are relatively rare in panoramic radiography and therefore chosen FOV should only include the regions of interest in order to reduce the dose. 13 However, by using full size panoramic radiographs potential important findings might be revealed that with limited FOV might have been missed. Examples of such findings are signs of osteomyelitis, cystic or tumorous lesions, carotid artery stenosis, and signs of osteoporosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective dose reduction using collimation function in digital panoramic radiography and possible clinical implications in dentistry

Benchimol

Koivisto

Kadesjö

et al. 2018

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Type and location of findings in dental panoramic tomographs in 7–12-year-old orthodontic patients

Abstract: Inclusion of only the actual area of interest in the image field should be considered case-specifically as a means to reduce the radiation dose.

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Radiographical Pathological Incidental Findings before Orthodontic Treatment

Radiographical Pathological Incidental Findings before Orthodontic Treatment

Prescription of panoramic radiographs in children using age‐based prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies

Effective dose reduction using collimation function in digital panoramic radiography and possible clinical implications in dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About