Background There is often anxiety among pregnant women about dental imaging during pregnancy. This may hinder some women from seeking dental treatment during pregnancy and consequently, may negatively affect the oral health of the mother and fetus. This study was conducted to assess women’s awareness regarding the use of dental imaging during pregnancy. Methods In this cross-sectional study, the electronic distribution of structured questionnaires was done via social media. The self-administered questionnaires contained questions related to women’s knowledge regarding the radiation protection measures during dental imaging, the safest period for dental imaging, the type of radiographs that can be acquired during pregnancy, and the possibility of radiation-induced malignancy and fetal malformation as a result of dental imaging. Results In total, 410 completed questionnaires were received and analyzed. More than half of the participants were 30–49 years of age. The majority of the participants (91%) demonstrated poor knowledge concerning dental imaging. Only 4% reported that pregnant women can have dental imaging during any trimester. The majority believed that panoramic images and cone-beam computed tomography should not be acquired during pregnancy. The majority also believed there is a high risk of congenital malformation due to dental imaging and were unsure about the oncogenic risks. Conclusions Our study suggests that there is insufficient knowledge about dental imaging safety during pregnancy. This misconception may have a direct impact on the attitude toward seeking dental care. Therefore, community awareness initiatives aimed at informing our society about radiation exposure, safety, and required protection measures are critical.
Purpose To evaluate the outcomes of endodontic microsurgery (EMS) using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), EndoSequence root repair material (RRM putty; Brasseler, Savannah, GA), and injectable Bioceramic (BC) sealer (Brasseler USA) followed by the application of RRM putty (lid technique) as root-end filling materials. Methods One hundred and ten patients who underwent EMS between 2016 and 2020 at King Abdulaziz University Dental Hospital were recruited for clinical and radiographic follow-up after a minimum of 1 year. Radiographic assessment was performed using periapical radiographs (PAs) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Volumetric analysis of periapical radiolucencies (PARLs) was performed using Amira software. Results Seventy-nine patients (103 teeth: MTA group, n = 28; RRM putty, n = 41; lid technique, n = 34), attended the follow-up visit, with an average follow-up period of 24 months (recall rate = 74.5%). Of the 103 teeth, 40 were anteriors, 24 were premolars, and 39 were molars. All three groups of retrograde filling materials (MTA, RRM putty, and lid technique) showed high success rates on both PA (85.7, 85.4, 94.1%, respectively) and CBCT imaging (67.9, 75.6, 88.2%, respectively), without any significant difference among the success rates of different materials. Overall, a slight agreement was noted between the PA and CBCT outcomes, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.029). None of the patient-, tooth-, or treatment-related factors significantly influenced the outcomes of EMS. Adequate density of root canal filling material was significantly associated with a high percentage of completely healed cases on CBCT (P = 0.044). PARL volumes were reduced significantly over 1–4 years follow-up after EMS (P < 0.001) Conclusions EMS showed high success rates on both PA and CBCT when MTA, RRM putty or lid technique were used as retrograde filling materials. CBCT imaging is more precise than PA in detecting the healing outcomes of EMS.
Purpose To evaluate the outcomes of endodontic microsurgery (EMS) using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), EndoSequence root repair material (RRM putty; Brasseler, Savannah, GA), and injectable Bioceramic (BC) sealer (Brasseler USA) followed by the application of RRM putty (lid-technique) as root-end filling materials. Methods One hundred and ten patients with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year, who underwent EMS in the period between 2016 and 2020 at King Abdulaziz University Dental Hospital, were recruited for clinical and radiographic follow-up. Radiographic assessment was performed using periapical radiographs (PAs) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Volumetric analysis of periapical radiolucencies (PARLs) was performed using Amira software. Results Seventy-nine patients (103 teeth) attended the follow-up visit, with an average follow-up period of 24 months (recall rate = 74.5%). All three groups of retrograde filling materials (MTA, RRM putty, and lid-technique) showed high success rates on both PA (85.7%, 85.4%, 94.1%, respectively) and CBCT imaging (67.9%, 75.6%, 88.2%, respectively), without any significant difference. Overall, a slight agreement was noted between the PA and CBCT outcomes, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.029). None of the patient-, tooth-, or treatment-related factors significantly influenced the outcomes of EMS. Adequate density of root canal filling material was significantly associated with a high percentage of completely healed cases on CBCT (P = 0.044). The volume of PARLs was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) during the follow-up period of 1–4 years. Conclusions EMS showed high success rates on both PA and CBCT when MTA, RRM putty or lid-technique were used as retrograde filling materials. CBCT imaging is more precise in detecting the healing outcome of EMS compared with PA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.