Search

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare OPG (orthopantomogram) in locating impacted canines with CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) scans of the same patients. METHODOLOGY: The cross-sectional study was carried out on the OPG (orthopantomogram) and CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) of 27 patients (17 females and 10 males) presenting with impacted permanent maxillary canines. Thirty-five impacted canines were subsequently assessed on the four guidelines devised by McSherry and Pitt and applied to the panoramic films and CBCT scans. RESULTS: The results show weak agreement for the canine’s angle to the midline and the canine’s horizontal root apex position (k value=0.55, 0.46, respectively). Moreover, significant differences were found between the OPG (orthopantomogram) and the CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) for all the variables using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test (p=.000) CONCLUSION: The results showed a significant difference in the 2D and 3D images of impacted maxillary canines, which can produce different diagnoses, and therefore treatment plans. OPG (Orthopantomogram) cannot be completely relied upon for the routine diagnosis of impacted canines.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare OPG (orthopantomogram) in locating impacted canines with CBCT (cone beam computed tomography) scans of the same patients. METHODOLOGY: The cross-sectional study was carried out on the OPG (orthopantomogram) and CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) of 27 patients (17 females and 10 males) presenting with impacted permanent maxillary canines. Thirty-five impacted canines were subsequently assessed on the four guidelines devised by McSherry and Pitt and applied to the panoramic films and CBCT scans. RESULTS: The results show weak agreement for the canine’s angle to the midline and the canine’s horizontal root apex position (k value=0.55, 0.46, respectively). Moreover, significant differences were found between the OPG (orthopantomogram) and the CBCT (Cone-Beam Computed Tomography) for all the variables using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test (p=.000) CONCLUSION: The results showed a significant difference in the 2D and 3D images of impacted maxillary canines, which can produce different diagnoses, and therefore treatment plans. OPG (Orthopantomogram) cannot be completely relied upon for the routine diagnosis of impacted canines.