Maxillary sinus unilateral aplasia as an incidental finding following cone-beam computed (volumetric) tomography

Cone-beam computed tomography-Predictors and characteristics of usage in Australia and New Zealand, a multifactorial analysis

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an increasingly used imaging modality. This study aimed to identify the factors that predict its usage amongst endodontists in Australia and New Zealand and describe usage characteristics. Data were collected via an online questionnaire, with analysis including descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation and multifactorial modelling. Ninety-four endodontists completed the questionnaire who were using CBCT for 7 years (median), over half had a CBCT unit in practice, with most prescribing up to 10 scans/month and 55 using a small field of view. Sixty-eight participated in >5 h of CBCT education/year and a third received a specialist-prepared report. The number of prescriptions/month was significantly associated with on-site CBCT units (Exp B: 8.53; 95% CI: 1.46-49.86, p < 0.05) and the number of years of CBCT usage by participants (Exp B: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.17-1.84, p = 0.001). CBCT imaging in endodontics is a useful diagnostic aid to decision making and treatment planning, with widespread acceptance and usage.

Evaluation of symptomatic maxillary sinus pathologies using panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography-influence of professional training

Background

A comparison of panoramic radiography (PAN) alone and PAN together with small field of view cone beam computed tomography (sFOV-CBCT) for diagnosis of symptomatic pathologies of the maxillary sinus was carried out by clinicians of different experience.

Methods

Corresponding radiographic images (PAN/sFOV-CBCT) of 28 patients with symptomatic maxillary sinus pathologies were chosen and analyzed by two general practitioners (GP), two junior maxillofacial surgeons (MS1), and three senior maxillofacial surgeons (MS2) via questionnaire.

Results

Visibility of maxillary pathologies in PAN was significantly different between the groups (GP 39%, MS1 48%, MS2 61%; p < 0.05). The number of incidental findings varied within examiner groups in PAN with a significant increase in MS2 (p = 0.027). The majority of examiners rated an additional sFOV-CBCT as “reasonable”/“required” with a significant influence of the examining groups (GP 98.2%, MS1 94.6%, MS2 80.9%; p = 0.008). In 58% of cases, an additional sFOV-CBCT was seen as “affecting therapy” with significant differences between the groups (GP 68%, MS1 50%, MS2 55%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

PAN alone is not sufficient for the evaluation of pathologies of the maxillary sinus. But, depending on the examiners’ clinical experience, it remains a useful diagnostic tool. Along with the observers’ training, significant benefits of an additional sFOV-CBCT for evaluation of symptomatic maxillary sinus pathologies were detected.