Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography
Objectives This study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional intraoral (CI) radiography, photostimulable phosphor (PSP) radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detection of strip and root perforations in endodontically treated teeth....
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
2015-02-01
|
Series: | Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.1.58 |
id |
doaj-e4256320f6fe46f9ac4153952815ae06 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-e4256320f6fe46f9ac4153952815ae062020-11-25T00:56:49ZengKorean Academy of Conservative DentistryRestorative Dentistry & Endodontics2234-76582234-76662015-02-01401586710.5395/rde.2015.40.1.58Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomographyAbbas Shokri0Amir Eskandarloo1Maruf Noruzi-Gangachin2Samira Khajeh3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Dental School, Hamadan, Iran.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Dental School, Hamadan, Iran.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Dental School, Hamadan, Iran.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences Dental School, Sanandaj, Iran.Objectives This study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional intraoral (CI) radiography, photostimulable phosphor (PSP) radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detection of strip and root perforations in endodontically treated teeth. Materials and Methods Mesial and distal roots of 72 recently extracted molar were endodontically prepared. Perforations were created in 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm diameter around the furcation of 48 roots (strip perforation) and at the external surface of 48 roots (root perforation); 48 roots were not perforated (control group). After root obturation, intraoral radiography, CBCT and MDCT were taken. Discontinuity in the root structure was interpreted as perforation. Two observers examined the images. Data were analyzed using Stata software and Chi-square test. Results The sensitivity and specificity of CI, PSP, CBCT and MDCT in detection of strip perforations were 81.25% and 93.75%, 85.42% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 72.92% and 87.50%, respectively. For diagnosis of root perforation, the sensitivity and specificity were 87.50% and 93.75%, 89.58% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 81.25% and 87.50%, respectively. For detection of strip perforation, the difference between CBCT and all other methods including CI, PSP and MDCT was significant (p < 0.05). For detection of root perforation, only the difference between CBCT and MDCT was significant, and for all the other methods no statistically significant difference was observed. Conclusions If it is not possible to diagnose the root perforations by periapical radiographs, CBCT is the best radiographic technique while MDCT is not recommended.https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.1.58 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Abbas Shokri Amir Eskandarloo Maruf Noruzi-Gangachin Samira Khajeh |
spellingShingle |
Abbas Shokri Amir Eskandarloo Maruf Noruzi-Gangachin Samira Khajeh Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics |
author_facet |
Abbas Shokri Amir Eskandarloo Maruf Noruzi-Gangachin Samira Khajeh |
author_sort |
Abbas Shokri |
title |
Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
title_short |
Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
title_full |
Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
title_fullStr |
Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
title_full_unstemmed |
Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
title_sort |
detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography |
publisher |
Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry |
series |
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics |
issn |
2234-7658 2234-7666 |
publishDate |
2015-02-01 |
description |
Objectives
This study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional intraoral (CI) radiography, photostimulable phosphor (PSP) radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detection of strip and root perforations in endodontically treated teeth.
Materials and Methods
Mesial and distal roots of 72 recently extracted molar were endodontically prepared. Perforations were created in 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm diameter around the furcation of 48 roots (strip perforation) and at the external surface of 48 roots (root perforation); 48 roots were not perforated (control group). After root obturation, intraoral radiography, CBCT and MDCT were taken. Discontinuity in the root structure was interpreted as perforation. Two observers examined the images. Data were analyzed using Stata software and Chi-square test.
Results
The sensitivity and specificity of CI, PSP, CBCT and MDCT in detection of strip perforations were 81.25% and 93.75%, 85.42% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 72.92% and 87.50%, respectively. For diagnosis of root perforation, the sensitivity and specificity were 87.50% and 93.75%, 89.58% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 81.25% and 87.50%, respectively. For detection of strip perforation, the difference between CBCT and all other methods including CI, PSP and MDCT was significant (p < 0.05). For detection of root perforation, only the difference between CBCT and MDCT was significant, and for all the other methods no statistically significant difference was observed.
Conclusions
If it is not possible to diagnose the root perforations by periapical radiographs, CBCT is the best radiographic technique while MDCT is not recommended. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.1.58 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT abbasshokri detectionofrootperforationsusingconventionalanddigitalintraoralradiographymultidetectorcomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT amireskandarloo detectionofrootperforationsusingconventionalanddigitalintraoralradiographymultidetectorcomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT marufnoruzigangachin detectionofrootperforationsusingconventionalanddigitalintraoralradiographymultidetectorcomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT samirakhajeh detectionofrootperforationsusingconventionalanddigitalintraoralradiographymultidetectorcomputedtomographyandconebeamcomputedtomography |
_version_ |
1725225386030137344 |