中国保健营养（中旬刊）
中國保健營養（中旬刊）
중국보건영양（중순간）
China Hwalth Care & nutrition
2014年
7期
4123-4124
,共2页
诊断%放射%牙槽骨缺失%X射线断层成像技术
診斷%放射%牙槽骨缺失%X射線斷層成像技術
진단%방사%아조골결실%X사선단층성상기술
Diagnosis%Tomography%Radiology%Alveolar bone loss
目的：比较根尖周片与锥形束CT（Cone beam CT，CBCT）成像在牙周骨丧失中的检测与定位作用。方法：图像选自需进行牙周评价的患者牙片，样本共计51个测量位点，包括水平和垂直骨丧失，分别由三名检测者进行评价，主要通过测量骨丧失的线性高度、深度和宽度以及对X射线断层片上的联合骨缺损进行识别鉴定。结果：两种成像方式在定性骨缺损上差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），但在测量釉牙骨质界（CEJ）和牙槽脊顶（AC）间距离时两种成像方式差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。在测量CEJ和缺损最深点间距和缺损的宽度时，两种方式差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。在本研究的39颗牙中，30.8%有联合骨缺损。结论：两种测量方式在测量牙槽脊的高度时有差异，但在测量骨缺失的深度和宽度时结论相似。应用CBCT 成像方式能对颊侧和舌侧/腭侧进行全面分析，并对骨缺失的表面形态进行观察。
目的：比較根尖週片與錐形束CT（Cone beam CT，CBCT）成像在牙週骨喪失中的檢測與定位作用。方法：圖像選自需進行牙週評價的患者牙片，樣本共計51箇測量位點，包括水平和垂直骨喪失，分彆由三名檢測者進行評價，主要通過測量骨喪失的線性高度、深度和寬度以及對X射線斷層片上的聯閤骨缺損進行識彆鑒定。結果：兩種成像方式在定性骨缺損上差異無統計學意義（P>0.05），但在測量釉牙骨質界（CEJ）和牙槽脊頂（AC）間距離時兩種成像方式差異有統計學意義（P<0.05）。在測量CEJ和缺損最深點間距和缺損的寬度時，兩種方式差異無統計學意義（P>0.05）。在本研究的39顆牙中，30.8%有聯閤骨缺損。結論：兩種測量方式在測量牙槽脊的高度時有差異，但在測量骨缺失的深度和寬度時結論相似。應用CBCT 成像方式能對頰側和舌側/腭側進行全麵分析，併對骨缺失的錶麵形態進行觀察。
목적：비교근첨주편여추형속CT（Cone beam CT，CBCT）성상재아주골상실중적검측여정위작용。방법：도상선자수진행아주평개적환자아편，양본공계51개측량위점，포괄수평화수직골상실，분별유삼명검측자진행평개，주요통과측량골상실적선성고도、심도화관도이급대X사선단층편상적연합골결손진행식별감정。결과：량충성상방식재정성골결손상차이무통계학의의（P>0.05），단재측량유아골질계（CEJ）화아조척정（AC）간거리시량충성상방식차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）。재측량CEJ화결손최심점간거화결손적관도시，량충방식차이무통계학의의（P>0.05）。재본연구적39과아중，30.8%유연합골결손。결론：량충측량방식재측량아조척적고도시유차이，단재측량골결실적심도화관도시결론상사。응용CBCT 성상방식능대협측화설측/악측진행전면분석，병대골결실적표면형태진행관찰。
To compare periapical radiographs with cone beam CT(CBCT) imaging in detecting and localizing alveolar bone loss by comparing linear measurements of the height, depth and width of the defects and identifying combined bone defects in tomographic images. Methods: The images were selected from a secondary database containing images of patients referred for periodontal evaluation. The sample consisted of 51 sites showing both horizontal and vertical bone loss, assessed by 3 trained examiners. Results: The results showed that there were no statisticaly significant differences between the imaging methods in terms of identification of the patern of bone loss. However, there were differences between the two methods when the distance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and the alveolar crest (AC) was measured. When the distance between the CEJ and the deepest point and width of the defect were measured, the methods showed no statisticaly significant difference. In this study, 30.8% of the 39 teeth evaluated had combined bone defects. Conclusions: The two methods differ when detecting the height of the alveolar bone crest but present similar views of the depth and width of bone defects. CBCT was the only method that alowed for an analysis of the buccal and lingual/palatal surfaces and an improved visualization of the morphology of the defect.
