Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of digital periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in detecting external root resorption

  • Creanga, Adriana Gabriela (Division of Dental Diagnostic Science, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Geha, Hassem (Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio) ;
  • Sankar, Vidya (Oral Medicine Clinic, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio) ;
  • Teixeira, Fabricio B. (Department of Endodontics, University of Iowa) ;
  • McMahan, Clyde Alex (Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio) ;
  • Noujeim, Marcel (Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio)
  • Received : 2015.03.10
  • Accepted : 2015.04.29
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital intraoral radiography in diagnosing simulated small external root resorption cavities. Materials and Methods: Cavities were drilled in 159 roots using a small spherical bur at different root levels and on all surfaces. The teeth were imaged both with intraoral digital radiography using image plates and with CBCT. Two sets of intraoral images were acquired per tooth: orthogonal (PA) which was the conventional periapical radiograph and mesioangulated (SET). Four readers were asked to rate their confidence level in detecting and locating the lesions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of each modality in detecting the presence of lesions, the affected surface, and the affected level. Analysis of variation was used to compare the results and kappa analysis was used to evaluate interobserver agreement. Results: A significant difference in the area under the ROC curves was found among the three modalities (P=0.0002), with CBCT (0.81) having a significantly higher value than PA (0.71) or SET (0.71). PA was slightly more accurate than SET, but the difference was not statistically significant. CBCT was also superior in locating the affected surface and level. Conclusion: CBCT has already proven its superiority in detecting multiple dental conditions, and this study shows it to likewise be superior in detecting and locating incipient external root resorption.

Keywords

References

  1. Fuss Z, Tsesis I, Lin S. Root resorption - diagnosis, classification and treatment choices based on stimulation factors. Dent Traumatol 2003; 19: 175-82. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-9657.2003.00192.x
  2. Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, Horner K, Mannocci F. The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography - an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J 2009; 42: 831-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01592.x
  3. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E. The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 818-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01299.x
  4. Noujeim M, Prihoda T, Langlais R, Nummikoski P. Evaluation of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography in the detection of simulated interradicular bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 156-62. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/61676894
  5. Durack C, Patel S, Davies J, Wilson R, Mannocci F. Diagnostic accuracy of small volume cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiography for the detection of simulated external inflammatory root resorption. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 136-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01819.x
  6. Bernardes RA, de Paulo RS, Pereira LO, Duarte MA, Ordinola- Zapata R, de Azevedo JR. Comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiographs in diagnosis of lingual-simulated external root resorptions. Dent Traumatol 2012; 28: 268-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01113.x
  7. Kamburoglu K, Kurşun S, Yuksel S, Oztas B. Observer ability to detect ex vivo simulated internal or external cervical root resorption. J Endod 2011; 37: 168-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.002
  8. D'Addazio PS, Campos CN, Ozcan M, Teixeira HG, Passoni RM, Carvalho AC. A comparative study between cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs in the diagnosis of simulated endodontic complications. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 218-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01802.x
  9. Kumar V, Gossett L, Blattner A, Iwasaki LR, Williams K, Nickel JC. Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e533-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.018
  10. American Association of Endodontists, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiography. AAE and AAOMR joint position statement. Use of cone-beam-computed tomography in endodontics. Pa Dent J (Harrisb) 2011; 78: 37-9.
  11. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, White SC. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139: 1237-43. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0339
  12. Qu XM, Li G, Ludlow JB, Zhang ZY, Ma XC. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 110: 770-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.06.013

Cited by

  1. Cone-beam computed tomography versus periapical radiograph for diagnosing external root resorption: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.87, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2319/061916-481.1
  2. The impact of Cone Beam CT on financial costs and orthodontists’ treatment decisions in the management of maxillary canines with eruption disturbance vol.40, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx039
  3. Accuracy of linear and volumetric measurements of artificial ERR cavities by using CBCT images obtained at 4 different voxel sizes and measured by using 4 different software: anex vivoresearch vol.47, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170325
  4. Accuracy in Detecting Artificial Root Resorption in Panoramic Radiography versus Tomosynthetic Panoramic Radiographs vol.45, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.009
  5. Diagnosis of external root resorption in teeth close and distant to zirconium implants: influence of acquisition parameters and artefacts produced during cone beam computed tomography vol.52, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13065
  6. Effect of brightness and contrast variation for detectability of root resorption lesions in digital intraoral radiographs vol.23, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2764-8
  7. The impact of different voxels and exposure parameters of CBCT for the assessment of external root resorptions: A phantom study vol.45, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12354
  8. The Disease Process, Diagnosis and Treatment of Invasive Cervical Resorption: A Review vol.8, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8030064
  9. A Review of External Cervical Resorption vol.47, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2021.03.004
  10. Radiographic features in 2D imaging as predictors for justified CBCT examinations of canine-induced root resorption vol.51, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20210165