Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic value of two modes of cone-beam computed tomography in evaluation of simulated external root resorption: an in vitro study

  • Dalili, Zahra (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental School, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Taramsari, Mehran (Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mehr, Seyed Zoheir Mousavi (Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental School, Guilan University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Salamat, Fatemeh (Department of Epidemiology, Guilan University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2011.12.10
  • Accepted : 2012.02.05
  • Published : 2012.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : Field of view and voxel resolution of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) might affect the diagnostic capability. This study was performed to compare between the standard and HiRes zoom modes in the diagnosis of external root resorption (ERR) using CBCT. Materials and Methods : Sixty three small cavities (0.25 mm depth and 0.5 mm diameter) were simulated on the buccal, lingual, and proximal surfaces at three different levels of 16 roots of teeth. After covering the root with nail varnish, the roots were inserted in the sockets and the model was placed in a water-containing lacuna. CBCT scans were taken in both standard and HiRes zoom modes using NewTom VG (QR srl Company, Verona, Italy). Then, an observer assessed the images to determine the presence or absence of the cavities. This process was repeated by increasing the size and depth of cavities to 0.5 mm depth and 1 mm diameter. Data were analyzed by McNemar test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio in evaluation of the simulated cavities were calculated. Results : There was a significant difference between the two imaging modes in diagnosing the shallow cavities (p=0.02).The sensitivity of the standard zoom in detecting the shallow cavities was lower than that of the HiRes zoom. The likelihood ratio of the HiRes zoom was higher in the diagnosis of both cavity types. Conclusion : This study suggested that a smaller voxel size in the HiRes zoom mode of CBCT is preferred for diagnosis of ERR.

Keywords

References

  1. Hulsmann M, Schafer E. Problems in endodontics; etiology, diagnosis and treatment. London: Quintessence; 2009. p. 421-34.
  2. Borg E, Källqvist A, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Film and digital radiography for detection of simulated root resorption cavities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 86 : 110-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90159-7
  3. Chapnick L. External root resorption: an experimental radiographic evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989; 67 : 578-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(89)90276-4
  4. Nance RS, Tyndall D, Levin LG, Trope M. Diagnosis of external root resorption using TACT (tuned-aperture computed tomography). Endod Dent Traumatol 2000; 16 : 24-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-9657.2000.016001024.x
  5. Westphalen VP, Gomes de Moraes I, Westphalen FH, Martins WD, Souza PH. Conventional and digital radiographic methods in the detection of simulated external root resorption: a comparative study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33 : 233-5. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/65487937
  6. Kravitz LH, Tyndall DA, Bagnell CP, Dove SB. Assessment of external root resorption using digital subtraction radiography. J Endod 1992; 18 : 275-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80954-4
  7. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Andreasen FM, Sewerin I. Digital subtraction radiography for assessment of simulated root resorption cavities. Performance of conventional and reverse contrast modes. Endod Dent Traumatol 1992; 8 : 149-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1992.tb00234.x
  8. da Silveira HL, Silveira HE, Liedke GS, Lermen CA, Dos Santos RB, de Figueiredo JA. Diagnostic ability of computed tomography to evaluate external root resorption in vitro. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007; 36 : 393-6. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/13347073
  9. Kim E, Kim KD, Roh BD, Cho YS, Lee SJ. Computed tomography as a diagnostic aid for extracanal invasive resorption. J Endod 2003; 29 : 463-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200307000-00009
  10. Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, Silveira HL, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JA. Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod 2009; 35 : 233-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.005
  11. Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, Horner K, Mannocci F. The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography - an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J 2009; 42 : 831-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01592.x
  12. Hahn W, Fricke-Zech S, Fricke J, Gruber RM, Dullin C, Zapf A, et al. Detection and size differentiation of simulated tooth root defects using flat-panel volume computerized tomography (fpVCT). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107 : 272-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.04.030
  13. Nakata K, Naitoh M, Izumi M, Ariji E, Nakamura H. Evaluation of correspondence of dental Computed Tomography imaging to anatomic observation of external root resorption. J Endod 2009; 35 : 1594-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.05.029
  14. Estrela C, Bueno MR, De Alencar AH, Mattar R, Valladares Neto J, Azevedo BC, et al. Method to evaluate inflammatory root resorption by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod 2009; 35 : 1491-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.08.009
  15. Andreasen FM, Sewerin I, Mandel U, Andreasen JO. Radiographic assessment of simulated root resorption cavities. Endod Dent Traumatol 1987; 3 : 21-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1987.tb00167.x
  16. Goldberg F, De Silvio A, Dreyer C. Radiographic assessment of simulated external root resorption cavities in maxillary incisors. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998; 14: 133-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1998.tb00826.x

Cited by

  1. Impact of Voxel Size Variation on CBCT-Based Diagnostic Outcome in Dentistry: a Systematic Review vol.26, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7
  2. Comparison of in vivo 3D cone-beam computed tomography tooth volume measurement protocols vol.15, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0069-2
  3. Comparison of the influence of FOV sizes and different voxel resolutions for the assessment of periodontal defects vol.44, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20150070
  4. Cone-beam computed tomography versus periapical radiograph for diagnosing external root resorption: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.87, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2319/061916-481.1
  5. Comparison of linear and volumetric measurements obtained from periodontal defects by using cone beam-CT and micro-CT: an in vitro study vol.23, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2665-x
  6. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with bitewing radiography for detection of periodontal bone loss and assessment of effects of different voxel resolutions: an in vitro study vol.35, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-018-0336-x
  7. Diagnosis of external root resorption in teeth close and distant to zirconium implants: influence of acquisition parameters and artefacts produced during cone beam computed tomography vol.52, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13065
  8. The impact of different voxels and exposure parameters of CBCT for the assessment of external root resorptions: A phantom study vol.45, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12354
  9. Comparative Reliability Assessment of Tooth Volume Measurement with Different Three-Dimensional Imaging Software vol.2020, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5870472
  10. Evaluation of Risk Factors for External Root Resorption and Dental Caries of Second Molars Associated With Impacted Third Molars vol.78, pp.9, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.04.041
  11. Influence of voxel size on micro-CT analysis of debris after root canal preparation vol.35, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2021.vol35.0008