The Comparison of Prognostic Indicators of Maxillary Impacted Canine using OPG (Orthopantomogram) with CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37762/jgmds.9-2.279Keywords:
Diagnosis, Maxillary Impacted Canine, Radiograph, Orthopantomogram (OPG), Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
The aim of the present study was to compare OPG (orthopantomogram) in locating impacted canines with CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) scans of the same patients.
METHODOLOGY:
The cross-sectional study was carried out on the OPG (orthopantomogram) and CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) of 27 patients (17 females and 10 males) presenting with impacted permanent maxillary canines. Thirty-five impacted canines were subsequently assessed on the four guidelines devised by McSherry and Pitt and applied to the panoramic films and CBCT scans.
RESULTS:
The results show weak agreement for the canine’s angle to the midline and the canine’s horizontal root apex position (k value=0.55, 0.46, respectively). Moreover, significant differences were found between the OPG (orthopantomogram) and the CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) for all the variables using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test (p=.000)
CONCLUSION:
The results showed a significant difference in the 2D and 3D images of impacted maxillary canines, which can produce different diagnoses, and therefore treatment plans. OPG (Orthopantomogram) cannot be completely relied upon for the routine diagnosis of impacted canines.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Malik DE, Fida M, Sukhia RH. Correlation between radiographic parameters for the prediction of palatally impacted maxillary canines. J Orthod. 2019;46(1):6-13
Tsolakis AI, Kalavritinos M, Bitsanis E, Sanoudos M, Benetou V, Alexiou K, et al. Reliability of different radiographic methods for the localization of displaced maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;153(2):308-14
Potrubacz MI, Chimenti C, Marchione L, Tepedino M. Retrospective evaluation of treatment time and efficiency of a predictable cantilever system for orthodontic extrusion of impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;154(1):55-64
Kim Y, Hyun HK, Jang KT. Morphological relationship analysis of impacted maxillary canines and the adjacent teeth on 3-dimensional reconstructed CT images. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(4):590-7
Hariharan A, Diwakar NR, Jayanthi K, Hema HM, Deepukrishna S, Ghaste SR. The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms. Indian J Dent Res. 2016;27(4):370
Eslami E, Barkhordar H, Abramovitch K, Kim J, Masoud MI. Cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional radiography in visualization of maxillary impacted-canine localization: a systematic review of comparative studies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151(2):248-58
Kritzler K. Cone-beam computed tomography imaging vs conventional radiography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;152(2):146-8
Abdelkarim A. Cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Dent J. 2019;7(3):89
Malik DES, Fida M, Sukhia RH. Correlation between radiographic parameters for the prediction of palatally impacted maxillary canines. J Orthod. 2019;46(1):6-13
Grybienė V, Juozėnaitė D, Kubiliūtė K. Diagnostic methods and treatment strategies of impacted maxillary canines: a literature review. Stomatologija. 2019;21(1):3-12
Alqahtani H. Management of maxillary impacted canines: a prospective study of orthodontists’ preferences. Saudi Pharm J. 2021;29:384-90
El Beshlawy D. Radiographic assessment of impacted maxillary canine position using cone-beam computed tomography: a comparative study of 2 methods. Egypt Dent J. 2019;65:3393-402
Jeremias F, Fragelli CM, Mastrantonio SD, dos Santos-Pinto L, dos Santos-Pinto A, Pansani CA. Cone-beam computed tomography as a surgical guide to impacted anterior teeth. Dent Res J. 2016;13(1):85
Schroder AGD, Guariza-Filho O, de Araujo CM, Ruellas AC, Tanaka OM, Porporatti AL. To what extent are impacted canines associated with root resorption of the adjacent tooth?: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;149(9):765-77
Ali IH, Al-Turaihi BA, Mohammed LK, Alam MK. Root resorption of teeth adjacent to untreated impacted maxillary canines: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Biomed Res Int. 2021;9:2021
McSherry P. The assessment of and treatment option for the buried maxillary canine. Dent Update. 1996;23:7¬10
Pitt S, Hamdan A, Rock P. A treatment difficulty index for unerupted maxillary canines. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:141-4
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica. 2012;22:276
Pico CL, do Vale FJ, Caramelo FJ, Corte-Real A, Pereira SM. Comparative analysis of impacted upper canines: panoramic radiograph vs cone beam computed tomography. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(10):1176-82
Mohammed AK, Sravani G, Vallappareddy D, Rao AR, Qureshi A, Prasad AN. Localization of impacted canines-a comparative study of computed tomography and orthopantomography. J Med Life. 2020;13:56
Hong CHL, Dean DR, Hull K, Hu SJ, Sim YF, Nadeau C, et al. World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: relative frequency of oral mucosal lesions in children, a scoping review. Oral Dis. 2019;25(1):193-203
Sarıkır Ç, Toraman Alkurt M, Değerli Ş, Altunkaynak B, Peker İ. Comparison of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for qualitative and quantitative measurements regarding localization of permanent impacted maxillary canines. Acta Odontol Turc. 2017;34:1-11
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nasir Mushtaq, Syeda Shamal, Nayab Hassan, Jawad Ullah Shah, Haider Ali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
