External validation of cone-beam computed tomography- and panoramic radiography-featured prediction models for inferior alveolar nerve injury after lower third molar removal: proposal of a risk calculator
Tóm tắt
We previously developed basic and extended models to predict inferior alveolar nerve injuries (IANI) after lower third molar (LM3) removal based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Although these models comprised predictors, including increased age and inferior alveolar canal-related CBCT factors, external validations were lacking. Therefore, this study externally validated these models and compared them with other related models based on their performance. Original and newly validated samples included patients who underwent LM3 removal following CBCT. Subsequently, 39 and 25 patients with IANI, then 457 and 295 randomly selected patients without IANI were chosen of the observed 1573 and 1052 patients, respectively. CBCT- and panoramic radiograph (PAN)-featured models were validated. Then, models’ discrimination and calibration abilities were assessed using C-statistics and calibration plots, respectively. Brier scores were also quantified, after which logistic recalibration was achieved to optimize calibration, and a risk calculator was developed. During the external validation, the extended model exhibited the best C-statistic (0.822) and Brier score (0.064), whereas two CBCT- and two PAN-featured models showed lower performances with C-statistics (0.764, 0.706, 0.584, and 0.627) and Brier scores (0.069, 0.074, 0.075, and 0.072). Besides, all models showed a tendency to overpredict its high-risk range. However, recalibration of the extended model resulted in excellent calibration performance. CBCT-featured models, especially the extended model, conclusively showed a superior predictive performance to PAN models. Therefore, the risk calculator on the extended CBCT model is proposed to be a clinical decision-aid tool that preoperatively predicts IANI risk.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Lopes V, Mumenya R, Feinmann C, Harris M. Third molar surgery: an audit of the indications for surgery, post-operative complaints and patient satisfaction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;33:33–5.
Cheung LK, Leung YY, Chow LK, et al. Incidence of neurosensory deficits and recovery after lower third molar surgery: a prospective clinical study of 4338 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39:320–6.
Korkmaz YT, Kayipmaz S, Senel FC, Atasoy KT, Gumrukcu Z. Does additional cone beam computed tomography decrease the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury in high-risk cases undergoing third molar surgery? Does CBCT decrease the risk of IAN injury? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:628–35.
Leung YY, McGrath C, Cheung LK. Trigeminal neurosensory deficit and patient reported outcome measures: the effect on quality of life. PLoS One. 2013;8: e77391.
Kang F, Sah MK, Fei G. Determining the risk relationship associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury following removal of mandibular third molar teeth: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;121:63–9.
Rood JP, Shehab BA. The radiological prediction of inferior alveolar nerve injury during third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;28:20–5.
Ghaeminia H, Gerlach NL, Hoppenreijs TJ, et al. Clinical relevance of cone beam computed tomography in mandibular third molar removal: a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:2158–67.
Wang D, Lin T, Wang Y, et al. Radiographic features of anatomic relationship between impacted third molar and inferior alveolar canal on coronal CBCT images: risk factors for nerve injury after tooth extraction. Arch Med Sci. 2018;14:532–40.
Matzen LH, Berkhout E. Cone beam CT imaging of the mandibular third molar: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019;48:20190039.
Matzen LH, Petersen LB, Schropp L, Wenzel A. Mandibular canal-related parameters interpreted in panoramic images and CBCT of mandibular third molars as risk factors to predict sensory disturbances of the inferior alveolar nerve. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:1094–101.
Kubota S, Imai T, Nakazawa M, Uzawa N. Risk stratification against inferior alveolar nerve injury after lower third molar extraction by scoring on cone-beam computed tomography image. Odontology. 2020;108:124–32.
Imai T, Nishimoto A, Kubota S, Nakazawa M, Uzawa N. Predictive scoring model for inferior alveolar nerve injury after lower third molar removal based on features of cone-beam computed tomography image. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;123:136–41.
Diamand R, Ploussard G, Roumiguie M, et al. External validation of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2021;79:180–5.
Moons KG, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE, et al. Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart. 2012;98:691–8.
Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:W1-73.
Kim JW, Cha IH, Kim SJ, Kim MR. Which risk factors are associated with neurosensory deficits of inferior alveolar nerve after mandibular third molar extraction? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:2508–14.
Szalma J, Lempel E, Jeges S, Szabo G, Olasz L. The prognostic value of panoramic radiography of inferior alveolar nerve damage after mandibular third molar removal: retrospective study of 400 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109:294–302.
Hasegawa T, Ri S, Shigeta T, et al. Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar–a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42:843–51.
Ueda M, Nakamori K, Shiratori K, et al. Clinical significance of computed tomographic assessment and anatomic features of the inferior alveolar canal as risk factors for injury of the inferior alveolar nerve at third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:514–20.
Selvi F, Dodson TB, Nattestad A, Robertson K, Tolstunov L. Factors that are associated with injury to the inferior alveolar nerve in high-risk patients after removal of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51:868–73.
Qi W, Lei J, Liu YN, et al. Evaluating the risk of post-extraction inferior alveolar nerve injury through the relative position of the lower third molar root and inferior alveolar canal. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:1577–83.
Shiratori K, Nakamori K, Ueda M, Sonoda T, Dehari H. Assessment of the shape of the inferior alveolar canal as a marker for increased risk of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve at third molar surgery: a prospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:2012–9.
Blaeser BF, August MA, Donoff RB, Kaban LB, Dodson TB. Panoramic radiographic risk factors for inferior alveolar nerve injury after third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61:417–21.
Tachinami H, Tomihara K, Fujiwara K, Nakamori K, Noguchi M. Combined preoperative measurement of three inferior alveolar canal factors using computed tomography predicts the risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury during lower third molar extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46:1479–83.
Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1925–31.
Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17:230.
Janssen KJ, Moons KG, Kalkman CJ, Grobbee DE, Vergouwe Y. Updating methods improved the performance of a clinical prediction model in new patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:76–86.
Rousson V, Zumbrunn T. Decision curve analysis revisited: overall net benefit, relationships to ROC curve analysis, and application to case-control studies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:45.
Russo D, Mariani P, Caponio VCA, et al. Development and validation of prognostic models for oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and appraisal of the literature. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(22):5755.
Debray TP, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H, et al. A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:279–89.
Mendonca LM, Gaeta-Araujo H, Cruvinel PB, et al. Can diagnostic changes caused by cone beam computed tomography alter the clinical decision in impacted lower third molar treatment plan? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50:20200412.
Ramspek CL, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, van Diepen M. External validation of prognostic models: what, why, how, when and where? Clin Kidney J. 2021;14:49–58.
Sprague S, Matta JM, Bhandari M, et al. Multicenter collaboration in observational research: improving generalizability and efficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 3):80–6.