背景:这项回顾性临床研究旨在比较锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)图像和根尖(PA)X射线照片的敏感性,以揭示破裂的牙齿,裂开的牙齿,和垂直根部骨折(VRFs)的牙齿。
方法:作者包括98例诊断为纵向牙齿骨折(LTF)(牙齿破裂,裂齿,VRF)通过提取后的直接可视化以及全面的临床和影像学记录。他们收集了人口统计,临床,和射线照相数据。作者评估了PAX射线照片和CBCT图像以识别骨折,断裂线,以及与这些牙齿相关的不同骨质流失模式。他们在评估骨丢失时使用McNemar测试来比较PAX射线照片和CBCT扫描。他们使用Fisher检验来确定骨折类型和人口统计学之间的统计关系,临床,和放射学特征。他们使用方差分析测试来比较患者年龄和骨折类型。
结果:CBCT图像在检测与LTF相关的骨丢失模式方面比PAX光片更有效(P<0.05)。71%的病例通过CBCT图像检测到,而42%的病例通过射线照片检测到。VRFs牙齿患者的平均年龄明显大于劈裂牙齿患者(P<0.05)。观察到骨折类型与以下变量之间存在显着关系:根管治疗(分裂,VRF,P=.002),深探测深度(≥5mm)(VRF,P=.026),并从口腔中拔出8颗以上的牙齿(VRF,P=.032)。总的来说,骨折线的可视化之间存在显着差异(P<.001)(PAX线照片上的45%,CBCT图像上的65%)。
结论:CBCT扫描比PA射线照相提供了更多的LTF信息,特别是在鉴定骨周围骨变化方面。
结论:CBCT成像可以通过观察骨丢失模式来辅助诊断LTF的临床,提供比PA射线照片更多的信息。
BACKGROUND: This retrospective clinical study aimed to compare the sensitivity of cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and periapical (PA) radiographs to reveal cracked teeth, split teeth, and teeth with vertical root fractures (VRFs).
METHODS: The authors included 98 patients (98 teeth) diagnosed with a longitudinal tooth fracture (LTF) (cracked tooth, split tooth, VRF) through direct visualization after extraction and with comprehensive clinical and radiographic records. They collected demographic, clinical, and radiographic data. The authors evaluated PA radiographs and CBCT images to identify fractures, fracture lines, and the different patterns of bone loss associated with these teeth. They used the McNemar test to compare PA radiographs and CBCT scans when assessing bone loss. They used the Fisher test to determine statistical relationships between fracture types and demographic, clinical, and radiologic traits. They used an analysis of variance test to compare patient age with fracture types.
RESULTS: CBCT images were significantly more effective (P < .05) in detecting bone loss patterns associated with LTFs than with PA radiographs, with 71% of cases detected via CBCT images compared with 42% via radiographs. Mean age was significantly greater (P < .05) in patients with teeth with VRFs than in patients with split teeth. A significant relationship was observed between the type of fracture and the following variables: root canal treatment (split, VRF, P = .002), deep probing depth (≥ 5 mm) (VRF, P = .026), and having more than 8 teeth extracted from the mouth (VRF, P = .032). Overall, there was a significant difference (P < .001) between the visualization of fracture lines (45% on PA radiographs, 65% on CBCT images).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT scans provided more information on LTFs than PA radiographs, particularly in the identification of periradicular bone changes.
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT imaging can assist in making the clinical diagnosis of LTFs through observation of bone loss patterns, providing more information than PA radiographs.