PAGD Keystone Explorer Winter 2020

Keystone Explorer | Winter 2020 9 dentistry issues Q Works Cited 1. Setzer FC, Hinckley N, Kohli MR, Karabucak B. A survey of cone-beam computed tomographic use among endodontic practitioners in the United States. J Endod 2017;43:699–704. 2. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG, Limited cone-bean CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:114–9. 3. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, et al. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod 2007;33:1121-32. 4. Patel S, Dawood A, Whaites E, Pitt Ford T. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 1. Conventional and alternative radiographic systems. Int Endod J 2009;42:447–62. 5. Patel, S.: New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 2009;42:463–75. 6. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:75–80. 7. Nair MK, Nair UP. Digital and advanced imaging in endodontics: a review. J Endod 2007;33:1–6. 8. Schloss T, Sonntag D, Kohli MR, Setzer FC. A comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional healing assessment after endodontic surgery using cone-beam computed tomographic volumes or periapical radiographs. J Endod 2017;43:1072–9. 9. Joint Position Statement of the American Association of Endodontists and the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on the Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Endodontics 2015 Update. 10. Mota de Almeida FJ, Knutsson K, Flaygare L. The impact of cone beam computed tomography on the choice of endodontic diagnosis. Int Endod J, 48:564–572, 2015. 11. Ee J, Fayad MI, Johnson BR. Comparison of endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning decisions using cone- beam volumetric tomography versus periapical radiography. J Endod. 014;40:910–6. 12. Rodriquez G, Abella F, Duran-Sindren F, Patel S, Roig M. Influence of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Clinical Decision Making among Specialists. J Endod 2017;43:194–199. C A S E N O . 3 (a) Periapical radiograph of tooth 14. Symptoms included spontaneous pain and abnormal sensitivity to cold. After clinical examination and testing, the diagnosis was symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with symptomatic apical periodontitis. (b) CBCT sagittal view of tooth 14 showing an invasive cervical resorptive defect (ICR – Heithersay Class IV) that cannot be detected on the periapical radiograph. (c) Axial view demonstrating the palatal and mesial location of the defect. (d) Coronal view demonstrating the internal aspect of the ICR defect, rendering tooth 14 non-restorable. A change in treatment plan was made and the patient was referred for extraction. Reprinted with permission from the American Association of Endodontists. Dr. Mohamed I. Fayad is a clinical associate professor and director of endodontic research at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry and is in private practice in Chicago. He can be reached at mfayad1@uic.edu . Although imaging is a very important diagnostic tool in endodontics, it should always be used as an adjunct to the clinical exam. The addition of subjective and objective clinical findings to CBCT should allow for an even more accurate clinical diagnosis and appropriate treatment plan.