Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 288   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 329-336

Incidental findings in patients who underwent cone beam computed tomography for implant treatment planning


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Zip 34010, İstanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Dumlupinar Avenue, Zip 07058, Campus, Antalya, Turkey
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Zip 25340, Erzurum, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Asst. Prof. E Kurtuldu
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_309_19

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine the type, frequency, and location of incidental findings in the maxillofacial region in patients undergoing cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan for implant treatment.[5]Methods: In this study, 300 patients who underwent CBCT imaging for implant treatment planning were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were evaluated in four different categories, namely, maxillary sinus pathologies, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) findings, dentoalveolar findings, and soft-tissue calcifications. In maxillary sinus pathologies, we categorized patients by mucosal thickening, polypoidal lesion, air–liquid level, total opacification, oroantral fistula, periapical lesion related with maxillary sinus, antrolith, hypoplasia, and foreign body presence. In the TMJ findings category, we evaluated patients for erosion, osteophyte, sclerosis, flattening, and bifid condyle. For dentoalveolar findings, we looked for the residual root and impacted tooth. In soft-tissue calcifications, we examined patients for tonsillolith, sialolith, lymph node calcification, styloid ligament calcification, carotid artery calcifications, and osteoma cutis. Results: Mucosal thickening was mostly seen in maxillary sinus pathology. One hundred and forty-eight (49.3%) of the patients had at least one TMJ incidental finding. We detected at least one impacted tooth in 17 (5.7%) patients' maxilla and 14 (4.7%) patients' mandibles. The most frequently seen calcification was styloid ligament calcification. There was no statistically significant relationship between the age groups and incidental findings (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Oral radiologists should be aware of incidental findings and evaluate the possibilities of underlying diseases in a comprehensive way, and if there is a concern about the finding, they should refer the patient to the relevant specialist.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed109    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded44    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal