Incidental Findings in Small Field of View Cone-beam Computed Tomography Scans.

INTRODUCTION: The use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in endodontics has increased in recent years. In clinical application of small field of view (FOV) CBCTs, these scans are not reviewed routinely by a radiologist. Studies of large FOV CBCT scans show the prevalence of incidental findings to be greater than 90%. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of missed findings by endodontic residents as compared with a radiologist on small FOV CBCT scans. METHODS: Two hundred three small FOV CBCTs obtained for endodontic purposes were analyzed by an endodontic resident and a medical radiologist. The reported findings of each practitioner were compared to evaluate for missed incidental findings by the endodontic resident. RESULTS: The radiologist reported abnormalities in 176 of the 203 subjects (87%), with a total of 310 abnormalities reported. The endodontic resident reported abnormalities in 102 of the 203 subjects (50%), with a total of 126 abnormalities reported. The percentage of scans with any abnormality reported by the radiologist was significantly greater than the endodontic resident (P < .001). There was no significant difference between jaw locations in percentage of missed findings for the 3 most common types of finding-rarefying osteitis, sinusitis/mucosal lining thickening, and excess restorative material in the periapical area. Rarefying osteitis was missed significantly less than the other 2 types of findings (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A radiologist is significantly more likely to identify incidental findings in small FOV CBCT scans than an endodontic resident. Scan location had no significant association with the rate of missed findings.

Effect of Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness of Four Ceramic Materials after Occlusal Adjustment.

PROBLEM: Intraoral occlusal adjustment of ceramic restorations can create a significant increase in surface roughness that can produce wear of the opposing dentition. PURPOSE: To compare the surface roughness of glazed and polished monolithic ceramics with the surface roughness produced by different intraoral polishing systems on adjusted monolithic ceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Milled ceramic discs (10 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness) were manufactured and distributed according to the following groups (n = 10): BruxZir (glazed and polished), Zenostar (glazed and polished), IPS Empress CAD, and IPS e.max CAD. Surface roughness, expressed as arithmetic average height (Ra ), was measured using atomic force microscope and profilometer before and after adjustment and polishing with the following intraoral polishing systems: BruxZir and Dialite ZR (for BruxZir), Zenostar and Dialite ZR (for Zenostar), and OptraFine and Dialite LD for IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD. Mean and standard error for each material and polishing system were calculated. T-test, one-way ANOVA, and Bonferroni post hoc tests were used to analyze data. RESULTS: BruxZir zirconia presented smoother surfaces with Dialite ZR system compared to BruxZir system, Zenostar zirconia shown smoother surfaces with Zenostar system compared to Dialite ZR system and IPS Empress CAD and IPS e.max CAD presented smoother surfaces with OptraFine system in comparison to Dialite LD system. CONCLUSION: All materials presented smoother surfaces at baseline than after adjustment and polishing. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This paper reveals the results of an in vitro study that provides information to clinicians regarding which intraoral polishing system will produce a smoother surface after the adjustment and polishing of IPS Empress CAD, IPS e.max CAD, BruxZir and Zenostar ceramic materials. (J Esthet Restor Dent 28:382-396, 2016).