The Angle orthodontist · 2012
Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography for detecting simulated apical root resorption.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ren Hongyu, Chen Jun, Deng Feng, Zheng Leilei, Liu Xiong, Dong Yanling
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and periapical radiography for detecting simulated external apical root resorption (EARR) in vitro.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 160 single-rooted premolar teeth for simulating EARR of varying degrees according to four setups: no (intact teeth), mild (cavity of 1.0 mm in diameter and depth on root surface), moderate (0.4 mm, 0.8 mm, 1.2 mm, and 1.6 mm root shortening), and severe (2.4 mm, 2.8 mm, 3.2 mm, and 3.6 mm root shortening). Two groups of radiographic images were obtained via CBCT and periapical radiography. The absence or presence and the severity for all resorption lesions were evaluated blindly by two calibrated observers.
RESULTS: With the CBCT method, the rates of correct classification of no, mild, moderate, and severe EARR were 96.3%, 98.8%, 41.3%, and 87.5%, respectively; with the periapical radiography method, the rates were 82.5%, 41.3%, 68.8%, and 92.5%, respectively. Highly significant differences were found between the two imaging methods for detection of mild (P < .001), moderate (P < .001), and all EARR (P < .001). For detection of all EARR, the sensitivity and specificity values were 75.8% and 96.3% for CBCT, compared with 67.5% and 82.5% for periapical radiography.
CONCLUSION: CBCT is a reliable diagnostic tool to detect simulated EARR, whereas periapical radiography underestimates it. However, if a periapical radiograph is already available to the diagnosis of EARR, CBCT should be used with extreme caution to avoid additional radiation exposure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 160 single-rooted premolar teeth for simulating EARR of varying degrees according to four setups: no (intact teeth), mild (cavity of 1.0 mm in diameter and depth on root surface), moderate (0.4 mm, 0.8 mm, 1.2 mm, and 1.6 mm root shortening), and severe (2.4 mm, 2.8 mm, 3.2 mm, and 3.6 mm root shortening). Two groups of radiographic images were obtained via CBCT and periapical radiography. The absence or presence and the severity for all resorption lesions were evaluated blindly by two calibrated observers.
RESULTS: With the CBCT method, the rates of correct classification of no, mild, moderate, and severe EARR were 96.3%, 98.8%, 41.3%, and 87.5%, respectively; with the periapical radiography method, the rates were 82.5%, 41.3%, 68.8%, and 92.5%, respectively. Highly significant differences were found between the two imaging methods for detection of mild (P < .001), moderate (P < .001), and all EARR (P < .001). For detection of all EARR, the sensitivity and specificity values were 75.8% and 96.3% for CBCT, compared with 67.5% and 82.5% for periapical radiography.
CONCLUSION: CBCT is a reliable diagnostic tool to detect simulated EARR, whereas periapical radiography underestimates it. However, if a periapical radiograph is already available to the diagnosis of EARR, CBCT should be used with extreme caution to avoid additional radiation exposure.