Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Niger J Clin Pract. 2020 Mar;23(3):329-336. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_309_19.

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

Author information

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.

Abstract

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.

KEYWORDS:

Cone beam computed tomography; incidental finding; maxillary sinus; temporomandibular joint

PMID:
32134031
DOI:
10.4103/njcp.njcp_309_19
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Medknow Publications and Media Pvt Ltd
Loading ...
Support Center