Top

Published in:

01-03-2020 | Computed Tomography | Review

CBCT does not reduce neurosensory disturbances after third molar removal compared to panoramic radiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Gabriel de Toledo Telles-Araújo, Mariela Peralta-Mamani, Raquel D’Aquino Garcia Caminha, Aneliza de Fatima Moraes-da-Silva, Cássia Maria Fischer Rubira, Heitor Marques Honório, Izabel Regina Fischer Rubira-Bullen

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 3/2020

Abstract

Objectives

The current dentistry scenario is showing an increase in the availability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in dental offices. Oral surgeons are using three-dimensional information as an additional tool to assess preoperative data for lower third molar (LTM) removal in moderate and high-risk cases of inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) injury diagnosed through the panoramic radiography (PR). The aim of this study is to identify whether CBCT examination reduces neurosensoric disturbances (ND) following the removal of the LTM when compared to PR.

Materials and Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus electronic databases were searched for studies published up to February 2019. The gray literature was also searched including papers that eventually met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using the comprehensive meta-analysis software, p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

Among the search, 6 studies met all eligibility criteria. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (PR and CBCT) in all six studies regarding reducing ND (95%. Confidence interval, 0,788–1734; heterogeneity: Q = 10,361; I² = 22.788%).

Conclusions

CBCT was not superior to PR in avoiding ND. However, further studies are necessary with standardized parameters for a better comparability between variables in the studies.

Clinical Relevance

To better understand the CBCT clinical applicability in LTM removal to avoid unnecessary extra radiation when compared to PR to the patient and to improve patient’s prognosis.

Roeder F, Wachtlin D, Schulze R (2012) Necessity of 3D visualization for the removal of lower wisdom teeth: required sample size to prove non-inferiority of panoramic radiography compared to CBCT. Clin Oral Investig 16:699–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0553-8 CrossRefPubMed

Petersen LB, Vaeth M, Wenzel A (2016) Neurosensoric disturbances after surgical removal of the mandibular third molar based on either panoramic imaging or cone beam CT scanning: a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 45:20150224CrossRef

Wolff C, Mücke T, Wagenpfeil S, Kanatas A, Bissinger O, Deppe H (2016) Do CBCT scans alter surgical treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative surgical diagnosis using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images. J CranioMaxillofac Surg 44(10):1700–1705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.025 CrossRefPubMed

Ludlow JB, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson DB, Scheske MJ (2015) Effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta-analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44(1):20140197. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140197 CrossRefPubMed

Petersen LB, Olsen KR, Matzen LH, Vaeth M, Wenzel A (2015) Economic and health implications of routine CBCT examination before surgical removal of the mandibular third molar in the Danish population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44:20140406CrossRef

Rood JP, Shehab BA (1990) The radiological prediction of inferior alveolar nerve injury during third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28:20–25CrossRef

Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M (2008) Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:106–114CrossRef

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1990: 21 ICRP publication 60

Peker I, Sarikir C, Alkurt MT, Zor ZF (2014) Panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography findings in preoperative examination of impacted mandibular third molars. BMC Oral Health 14(1):71–77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-71 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Shaban B, Khaki S (2015) Incidence of inferior alveolar nerve damage and recovery following mandibular third molar surgery: two year prospective study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 14(10):2279–2861

11.

Ziccardi VB, Zuniga JR (2007) Nerve injuries after third molar removal. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 19:105–115CrossRef

12.

Matzen LH, Wenzel A (2015) Efficacy of CBCT for assessment of impacted mandibular third molars: a review - based on a hierarchical model of evidence. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44(1):20140189. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140189 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ghaeminia H, Meijer GJ, Soehardi A, Borstlap WA, Mulder J, Vlijmen OJ, Bergé SJ, Maal TJ (2011) The use of cone beam CT for the removal of wisdom teeth changes the surgical approach compared with panoramic radiography: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(8):834–839CrossRef

14.

Matzen LH, Christensen J, Hintze H, Schou S, Wenzel A (2013) Influence of cone beam CT on treatment plan before surgical intervention of mandibular third molars and impact of radiographic factors on deciding on coronectomy vs surgical removal. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 42(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/98870341 CrossRef

15.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269CrossRef

16.

Tachinami H, Tomihara K, Fujiwara K, Nakamori K, Noguchi M (2017) Combined preoperative measurement of three inferior alveolar canal factors using computed tomography predicts the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury during lower third molar extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46(11):1479–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.006 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gallesio C, Berrone M, Ruga E, Boffano P (2010) Surgical extraction of impacted inferior third molars at risk for inferior alveolar nerve injury. J Craniofac Surg 21(6):2003–2007CrossRef

18.

Selvi F, Dodson TB, Nattestad A, Robertson K, Tolstunov L (2013) Factors that are associated with injury to the inferior alveolar nerve in high-risk patients after removal of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:868–873CrossRef

19.

Ghai S, Choudhury S (2017) Role of panoramic imaging and cone beam CT for assessment of inferior alveolar nerve exposure and subsequent paresthesia following removal of impacted mandibular third molar. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 17(2):242–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1026-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Matzen LH, Schou S, Christensen J, Hintze H, Wenzel A (2014) Audit of a 5-year radiographic protocol for assessment of mandibular third molars before surgical intervention. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 43:20140172. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140172 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Ghaeminia H, Gerlach NL, Hoppenreijs TJ, Kicken M, Dings JP, Borstlap WA, de Haan T, Berga SJ, Meijer GJ, Maal TJ (2015) Clinical relevance of cone beam computed tomography in mandibular third molar removal: a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43(10):2158–2167CrossRef

22.

Guerrero ME, Nackaerts O, Beinsberger J, Horner K, Schoenaers J, Jacobs R (2012) Inferior alveolar nerve sensory disturbance after impacted mandibular third molar evaluation using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography: a pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:2264–2270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.04.01 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Guerrero ME, Botetano R, Beltran J, Horner K, Jacobs R (2013) Can preoperative imaging help to predict postoperative outcome after wisdom tooth removal? A randomized controlled trial using panoramic radiography versus cone-beam CT. Clin Oral Investig 18:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0971-x CrossRefPubMed

24.

Korkmaz YT, Kayıpmaz S, Senel FC, Atasoy KT, Gumrukcu Z (2017) Does additional cone beam computed tomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery? Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 6(5):628–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.01.001 CrossRef

25.

Sanmartí-Garcia G, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Gay-Escoda C (2012) Does computed tomography prevent inferior alveolar nerve injuries caused by lower third molar removal? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(1):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.03.030 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Slade GD (1997) Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 25:284–290CrossRef

27.

Heurich T, Ziegler C, Steveling H, Wörtche R, Mühling J, Hassfeld S (2002) Digital volume tomography-an extension to the diagnostic procedures available for application before surgical removal of third molars. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 6:427–432CrossRef

28.

Danforth RA, Peck J, Hall P (2003) Cone beam volume tomography: an imaging option for diagnosis of complex mandibular third molar anatomical relationships. J Calif Dent Assoc 31:847–852PubMed

29.

Tantanapornkul W, Okouchi K, Fujiwara Y, Yamashiro M, Maruoka Y, Ohbayashi N et al (2007) A comparative study of cone-beam computed tomography and conventional panoramic radiography in assessing the topographic relationship between the mandibular canal and impacted third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:253–259CrossRef

30.

Neugebauer J, Shirani R, Mischkowski RA, Ritter L, Scheer M, Keeve E et al (2008) Comparison of cone-beam volumetric imaging and combined plain radiographs for localization of the mandibular canal before removal of impacted lower third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 105:633–642 discussion 643CrossRef

31.

Ghaeminia H, Meijer GJ, Soehardi A, Borstlap WA, Mulder J, Berge SJ (2009) Position of the impacted third molar in relation to the mandibular canal. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography compared to panoramic radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:964–971CrossRef

32.

Suomalainen A, Apajalahti S, Vehmas T, Ventä I (2012) Availability of CBCT and iatrogenic alveolar nerve injuries. Acta Odontol Scand 71(1):151–156. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2011.654254 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Matzen LH, Berkhout E (2019) Cone beam CT imaging of the mandibular third molar: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radi- ology (EADMFR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 48:20190039CrossRef

34.

Eyrich G, Seifert B, Matthews F, Matthiessen U, Heusser CK, Kruse AL et al (2011) 3-Dimensional imaging for lower third molars: is there an implication for surgical removal? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69:1867–1872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.10.039 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Umar G, Obisesan O, Bryant C, Rood JP (2013) Elimination of permanent injuries to the inferior alveolar nerve following surgical intervention of the “high risk” third molar. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:353–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2012.08.006 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Poort LJ, van Neck JW, van der Wal KG (2009) Sensory testing of inferior alveolar nerve injuries: a review of methods used in prospective studies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:292e300CrossRef

37.

Çakır M, Karaca İR, Peker E, Öğütlü F (2018) Effects of inferior alveolar nerve neurosensory deficits on quality of life. Niger J Clin Pract 21:206–211PubMed

38.

Araujo GTT, Peralta-Mamani M, Silva AFMD, Rubira CMF, Honório HM, Rubira-Bullen IRF (2019) Influence of cone beam computed tomography versus panoramic radiography on the surgical technique of third molar removal: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48:1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.04.003 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Long H, Zhou Y, Liao L, Pyakurel U, Wang Y, Lai W (2012) Coronectomy vs. total removal for third molar extraction. J Dent Res 91(7):659–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512449346 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nakamori K, Fujiwara K, Miyazaki A, Tomihara K, Tsuji M, Nakai M, Michifuri Y, Suzuki R, Komai K, Shimanishi M, Hiratsuka H (2008) Clinical assessment of the relationship between the third molar and the inferior alveolar canal using panoramic images and computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:2308–2313CrossRef

41.

Nakayama K, Nonoyama M, Takaki Y, Kagawa T, Yuasa K, Izumi K, Ozeki S, Ikebe T (2009) Assessment of the relationship between impacted mandibular third molars and inferior alveolar nerve with dental 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:2587–2591CrossRef

42.

Hasegawa T, Ri S, Shigeta T, Akashi M, Imai Y, Kakei Y, Shibuya Y, Komori T (2013) Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar—a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:843–851CrossRef

43.

Tay AB, Go WS (2004) Effect of exposed inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle during surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:592–600CrossRef

Title: CBCT does not reduce neurosensory disturbances after third molar removal compared to panoramic radiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Gabriel de Toledo Telles-Araújo
Mariela Peralta-Mamani
Raquel D’Aquino Garcia Caminha
Aneliza de Fatima Moraes-da-Silva
Cássia Maria Fischer Rubira
Heitor Marques Honório
Izabel Regina Fischer Rubira-Bullen
Publication date: 01-03-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03231-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

CBCT does not reduce neurosensory disturbances after third molar removal compared to panoramic radiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Bleaching gel mixed with MI Paste Plus reduces penetration of H2O2 and damage to pulp tissue and maintains bleaching effectiveness

Comparison of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) produced using 3 commercially available centrifuges at both high (~ 700 g) and low (~ 200 g) relative centrifugation forces

Mapping of inflammatory biomarkers in the peri-implant crevicular fluid before and after the occlusal loading of narrow diameter implants

Optimizing mandibular sagittal split of large maxillomandibular advancements for obstructive sleep apnea: patient and surgical factors

In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study

The response of periodontal cells to kaolinite