DMFR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, A.
Right arrow Articles by Sindet-Pedersen, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wenzel, A.
Right arrow Articles by Sindet-Pedersen, S.

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Vol 27, Issue 5 264-269, Copyright © 1998 by British Institute of Radiology


ARTICLES

Evaluation of a new radiographic technique: outcome following removal of mandibular third molars

A. Wenzel, E. Aagaard and S. Sindet-Pedersen
Department of Oral Radiology, Royal Dental College, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on outcome of third molar removal of pre-operative radiographic assessment by two different techniques. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty three patients were allocated prior to surgery to one of two diagnostic groups. One hundred and thirty-seven were examined by the Scanora and 126 by a panoramic plus three intra-oral radiographs. Ten oral surgeons recorded their operating time in minutes. Postoperative pain was recorded 4 h after the operation by the patients on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The following clinical parameters were recorded at the 1-week postoperative examination: alveolitis, bleeding, and swelling related to the operation area, and any other complications such as paresthesia, nausea and trismus. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups of patients (t-test; P > 0.82) nor in the frequency of immediate postoperative pain (chi 2-test; P > 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences in pain score between patients who experienced pain in the two groups (P = 0.10). Sixty-four patients experienced one or more postoperative complications, but the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (chi 2-test; P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between the surgeons in the number of patients they operated on who experienced pain (chi 2-test; P = 0.18) or who developed complications (chi 2-test; P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: There are no adverse effects on the rate of postoperative complications when surgeons with little experience with it base their diagnosis and treatment plan on Scanora compared with conventional radiography.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 1998 by the British Institute of Radiology.