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....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Abbas Shokri, Amir Eskandarloo, Maruf Noruzi-Gangachin, Samira Khajeh
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