Journal of endodontics · 2009
Method to evaluate inflammatory root resorption by using cone beam computed tomography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Estrela Carlos, Bueno Mike Reis, De Alencar Ana Helena Gonçalves, Mattar Rinaldo, Valladares Neto José, Azevedo Bruno Correa, De Araújo Estrela Cyntia Rodrigues
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate a method to measure inflammatory root resorption (IRR) by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.
METHODS: IRR sites were classified according to root third and root surface, and IRR extension was measured on the axial, transverse, and tangent views of 3-dimensional CBCT scans by using the Planimp software. A 5-point (0-4) scoring system was used to measure the largest extension of root resorption. A total of 48 periapical radiographs and CBCT scans originally taken from 40 patients were evaluated. The kappa coefficient was used to assess interobserver agreement and the chi(2) test to determine significant differences between the imaging methods. The level of significance was set at alpha = 1%.
RESULTS: IRR was detected in 68.8% (83 root surfaces) of the radiographs and 100% (154 root surfaces) of the CBCT scans (P < .001). The extension of IRR was >1-4 mm in 95.8% of the CBCT images and in 52.1% of the images obtained by using the conventional method (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT seems to be useful in the evaluation of IRR, and its diagnostic performance was better than that of periapical radiography.
METHODS: IRR sites were classified according to root third and root surface, and IRR extension was measured on the axial, transverse, and tangent views of 3-dimensional CBCT scans by using the Planimp software. A 5-point (0-4) scoring system was used to measure the largest extension of root resorption. A total of 48 periapical radiographs and CBCT scans originally taken from 40 patients were evaluated. The kappa coefficient was used to assess interobserver agreement and the chi(2) test to determine significant differences between the imaging methods. The level of significance was set at alpha = 1%.
RESULTS: IRR was detected in 68.8% (83 root surfaces) of the radiographs and 100% (154 root surfaces) of the CBCT scans (P < .001). The extension of IRR was >1-4 mm in 95.8% of the CBCT images and in 52.1% of the images obtained by using the conventional method (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: CBCT seems to be useful in the evaluation of IRR, and its diagnostic performance was better than that of periapical radiography.