RESUMEN
SUMMARY: The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and location of maxillary sinus septa prior to dental implant therapy in different age groups by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and identify the most helpful orthogonal plane for this purpose. CBCT scans of 200 patients were selected. The final sample was divided into four groups according to age: (1) 30-39 y.o.; (2) 40-49 y.o.; (3) 50-59 y.o.; (4) +60 y.o. Three calibrated examiners assessed the presence and location (anterior, middle, posterior) of sinus septa using all orthogonal slices. The prevalence of septa per region and plane was compared by chi-square test. Among 359 maxillary sinuses evaluated, it was observed at least one septum in 163 sinuses (45.4 %). Overall, the anterior region was the most prevalent. However, when the age groups were considered, the anterior region was only the most prevalent in groups 2 and 3. The middle and posterior regions were more prevalent in groups 4 and 1, respectively. In conclusion, the prevalence of maxillary sinus septa in patients who were candidate to dental implant therapy was notably high. It was observed that the anterior region of the sinus was the most prevalent and the axial slice was the most representative.
RESUMEN: El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar la prevalencia y localización del septo del seno maxilar antes del tratamiento con implantes dentales en diferentes grupos etarios, por medio de la Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico (TCHC). Fueron seleccionadas TCHC de 200 pacientes. La muestra final fue dividida en cuatro grupos de acuerdo con la edad: (1) 30-39 años; (2) 40-49 años; (3) 50-59 años y (4) +60 años. Tres examinadores calibrados evaluaron la presencia y localización (anterior, media o posterior) del septo del seno maxilar usando todas las secciones ortogonales. La prevalencia del septo por región y plano fue comparada mediante el test x-cuadrado. Entre los 359 senos maxilares evaluados, fue observado por lo menos un septo en 163 senos (45,4 %). Generalmente la región anterior fue la más prevalente. Sin embargo, cuando fueron considerados los grupos etarios, solamente la región anterior fue la más prevalente en los grupos 2 y 3. Las regiones media y posterior fueron las más prevalente en los grupos 4 y 1, respectivamente. La prevalencia del septo del seno maxilar en pacientes que son candidatos a tratamiento con implantes dentales fue notablemente alta. Se observó que la región anterior fue la más prevalente siendo las secciones axiales las más representativas.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Implantes Dentales , Interfase Hueso-Implante/fisiología , Seno Maxilar/anatomía & histología , Prevalencia , Distribución por Edad , Comités de Ética en Investigación , Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico , Seno Maxilar/fisiologíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the assessment of external root resorption (ERR) of second molars associated with impacted third molars. In addition, the prevalence of ERR in second molars and the inclinations of the third molars more associated with ERR were investigated in both imaging methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 66 individuals with maxillary and mandibular impacted third molars (n = 188) seen on panoramic radiographs and CBCT images. The presence of ERR on the adjacent second molar was investigated, and the position of the third molar was determined using Winter's classification (vertical, horizontal, mesioangular, distoangular, and transverse). Statistical analysis was performed using the χ(2) test, Fisher exact test, and 2-proportion Z test (the significance level was set at 5%). RESULTS: A significantly greater number of cases of ERR (P < .0001) was diagnosed from CBCT images (n = 43, 22.88%) than panoramic radiographs (n = 10, 5.31%). The agreement between the panoramic radiographs and CBCT scans for diagnosing ERR was 4.3%. Mandibular third molars in mesioangular and horizontal inclinations were more likely to cause resorption of the adjacent teeth. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT should be indicated for the diagnosis of ERR in second molars when direct contact between the mandibular second and third molars has been observed on panoramic radiographs, especially in mesioangular or horizontal impactions. Furthermore, considering the propensity of these teeth to cause ERR in second molars, third molar prophylactic extraction could be suggested.
