Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To query the experience of oral surgeons concerning referral routines and preferences for radiographic imaging modality before surgical removal of mandibular third molars and investigate factors that influence imaging modality preferences.
Materials and methods
Members of the Swedish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (n = 280) were invited to participate in a web-based digital survey concerning their experiences and use of three imaging modalities in pre-surgical assessment of mandibular third molar removal. The survey comprised multiple-choice questions and four cases depicted in images; respondents reported whether they would supplement the cases with other images and, if so, from which modality.
Results
The response rate was 64%. Panoramic radiographs were most commonly used in pre-surgical planning (response options: always or often), significant difference between professions (p = 0.039), and considered to facilitate treatment planning (87%), as was CBCT (82%); for 51%, CBCT reduced post-operative complications. Preferred modality for localizing the mandibular canal was fairly evenly distributed and for non-complex case, significant difference between subgroups of OMFS surgeons was found (p = 0.003) as to preference for intraoral radiographs.
Conclusions
A majority of respondents received a report within 2 weeks of their referral for CBCT and would read the report and view the images before surgery. Image modality preference differed depending on case complexity, with a greater perceived need for CBCT. Profession and practical experience affected choice.
Clinical relevance
Choice of imaging modality in mandibular third molar assessment is also important from dose delivery and social economy standpoints.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Susarla SM, Blaeser BF, Magalnick D (2003) Third molar surgery and associated complications. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 15:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1042-3699(02)00102-4
2. Cederhag J, Lundegren N, Alstergren P, Shi XQ, Hellen-Halme K (2020) Evaluation of panoramic radiographs in relation to the mandibular third molar and to incidental findings in an adult population. Eur J Dent. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721294
3. Christell H, Birch S, Hedesiu M et al (2012) Variation in costs of cone beam CT examinations among healthcare systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:571–577. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/22131776
4. Petersen LB, Olsen KR, Christensen J, Wenzel A (2014) Image and surgery-related costs comparing cone beam CT and panoramic imaging before removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 43:20140001. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140001
5. European Commission (2012) Radiation Protection N° 172 Cone Beam CT For Dental And Maxillofacial Radiology. Evidence-Based Guidelines. Directorate-General for Energy, Directorate D – Nuclear Energy, Unit D4 – Radiation Protection. 1681–6803. http://www.sedentexct.eu/. Accessed 6 Jul 2021
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献