CBCT vs panoramic radiography in assessment of impacted upper canine and root resorption of the adjacent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Mariela Peralta-Mamani ^[1] ; Cássia-Maria-Fischer Rubira ^[1] ; José López-López ^[2] ; Heitor-Marques Honório ^[1] ; Izabel-Regina-Fischer Rubira-Bullen ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidade de São Paulo

     Universidade de São Paulo

     Brasil

     
  2. [2] Oral Health and Masticatory System Group-IDIBELL / Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (School of Dentistry) / Odontological Hospital University of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Campus Bellvitge, Carrer de la Feixa Llarga, s/n, 08907 L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 16, Nº. 2 (February), 2024, págs. 198-222
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • The IC may cause reabsorption of adjacent teeth; therefore detailed assessment of its position would enhance decision-making in the clinical workflow. The objective was to compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) in assessing the position of the impacted upper canine (IC) and root resorption of adjacent teeth.

    Pubmed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched for studies published before August 2023. Studies that evaluated IC by using both imaging methods were included. For statistical analysis, the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Biostat; Englewood, NJ) was used, p≤0.05.

    A total of 17 articles were included, with 877 patients (average age of 17.6 years) and 1,115 ICs. The most frequent mesio-distal location of the IC was in sectors 3 and 4. The meta-analysis was performed with eleven studies. CBCT was more accurate in determining the labio-palatal position compared with PR (p<0.001) (CI 95%; 60% in labial position, 0.254-0.542, OR:0.398; 56% in palatal position, 0.350-0.533, OR:0.441; 78% in mid-alveolus position, 0.188-0.234, OR:0.221). For IC angulation to the midline, CBCT showing a smaller and more accurate angle than PR (p<0.001) (CI 95%, 18.008-33.686). IC angulation to the occlusal plane and lateral incisor, there was smaller angle in PR compared to CBCT (p<0.001) (CI 95%, 51.292-65.934; CI 95%, 30.011-55.954). With PR, fewer cases of root resorption of teeth adjacent to the IC were visualized compared with CBCT (86% less) (p<0.001) (CI 95%, 0.089-0.186; OR value: 0.138; n=1049).

    CBCT showed statistically significant differences compared to PR in the assessment of IC position and root resorption of adjacent teeth. CBCT provided clinically relevant information that may contribute to diagnosing and planning IC treatment when PR was not sufficient.