MedElevator
Войти в исследования European endodontic journal · 2026
Accuracy of Digital Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Assessing Filling Material Extrusion Using Micro-Computed Tomography as Gold Standard: A Study in Human Cadavers.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Monteiro Thamyres, Romeiro Kaline, Brisson-Suárez Karen, Aazzouzi-Raiss Karim, Marceliano-Alves Marília, Campello Andrea, Alves Flávio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the accuracy of digital periapical radiography (DPR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting extruded filling material, using a human cadaver model. Micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT) served as the gold standard.
METHODS: A total of 27 single-rooted teeth embedded in cadaveric mandibular segments, obtained from a prior retreatment study, were included: 25 with confirmed apical extrusion of filling material on micro-CT and 2 without extrusion serving as negative controls. The segments were imaged using both DPR and CBCT. Two calibrated endodontists independently assessed the images for visible extrusion; discrepancies were resolved by a third evaluator.
RESULTS: Although DPR demonstrated lower overall sensitivity than CBCT, both modalities showed identical specificity (100%). Diagnostic accuracy was 70% for DPR and 74% for CBCT, without statistically significant difference between them (P > .05). Moreover, the volume of extruded filling material was not a significant predictor of detection accuracy for either DPR (P > .05) or CBCT (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, both DPR and CBCT demonstrated low accuracy in detecting filling material extrusion, with no significant difference between them. The occurrence of false-negative results may compromise the reliable assessment of extruded filling materials. In cases of true extrusion, approximately one-third would go undetected by both methods.
METHODS: A total of 27 single-rooted teeth embedded in cadaveric mandibular segments, obtained from a prior retreatment study, were included: 25 with confirmed apical extrusion of filling material on micro-CT and 2 without extrusion serving as negative controls. The segments were imaged using both DPR and CBCT. Two calibrated endodontists independently assessed the images for visible extrusion; discrepancies were resolved by a third evaluator.
RESULTS: Although DPR demonstrated lower overall sensitivity than CBCT, both modalities showed identical specificity (100%). Diagnostic accuracy was 70% for DPR and 74% for CBCT, without statistically significant difference between them (P > .05). Moreover, the volume of extruded filling material was not a significant predictor of detection accuracy for either DPR (P > .05) or CBCT (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, both DPR and CBCT demonstrated low accuracy in detecting filling material extrusion, with no significant difference between them. The occurrence of false-negative results may compromise the reliable assessment of extruded filling materials. In cases of true extrusion, approximately one-third would go undetected by both methods.