Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제40권1호
  • /
  • Pages.58-67
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography

  • Shokri, Abbas (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Dental School) ;
  • Eskandarloo, Amir (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Dental School) ;
  • Noruzi-Gangachin, Maruf (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Dental School) ;
  • Khajeh, Samira (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences Dental School)
  • 투고 : 2014.05.15
  • 심사 : 2014.09.26
  • 발행 : 2015.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Fuss Z, Trope M. Root perforations: classification and treatment choices based on prognostic factors. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:255-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1996.tb00524.x
  2. Ingle JI. A standardized endodontic technique utilizing newly designed instruments and filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1961;14:83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(61)90477-7
  3. Tsesis I, Fuss Z. Diagnosis and treatment of accidental root perforations. Endod Topics 2006;13:95-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2006.00213.x
  4. Alhadainy HA. Root perforations. A review of literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994;78:368-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90070-1
  5. Bryant ST, Dummer PM, Pitoni C, Bourba M, Moghal S. Shaping ability of .04 and .06 taper ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments in stimulated root canals. Int Endod J 1999;32:155-164. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00256.x
  6. Berutti E, Fedon G. Thickness of cementum/dentin in mesial roots of mandibular first molars. J Endod 1992;18:545-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81211-2
  7. Shemesh H, Cristescu RC, Wesselink PR, Wu MK.The use of cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiographs to diagnose root perforations. J Endod 2011;37:513-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.003
  8. Ball RL, Barbizam JV, Cohenca N. Intraoperative endodontic applications of cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 2013;39:548-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.038
  9. Patel S, Dawood A, Mannocci F, Wilson R, Pitt Ford T. Detection of periapical bone defects in human jaws using cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiography. Int Endod J 2009;42:507-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01538.x
  10. Chindasombatjaroen J, Kakimoto N, Murakami S, Maeda Y, Furukawa S. Quantitative analysis of metallic artifacts caused by dental metals: comparison of cone-beam and multi-detector row CT scanners. Oral Radiol 2011;27:114-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-011-0071-z
  11. Gaia BF, Sales MA, Perrella A, Fenyo-Pereira M, Cavalcanti MG. Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography for identification of simulated bone lesions. Braz Oral Res 2011;25:362-368. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242011000400014
  12. Eskandarloo A, Mirshekari A, Poorolajal J, Mohammadi Z, Shokri A. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography with intraoral photostimulable phosphor imaging plate for diagnosis of endodontic complications: a simulation study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;114:e54-61.
  13. Fuss Z, Assooline LS, Kaufman AY. Determination of location of root perforations by electronic apex locators. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:324-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80361-1
  14. Skidmore AE, Bjorndal AM. Root canal morphology of the human mandibular first molar. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32:778-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(71)90304-5
  15. Bender IB, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone: I. 1961. J Endod 2003;29:702-706. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200311000-00005
  16. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:485-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.002
  17. Udupa H, Mah P, Dove SB, McDavid WD. Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:774-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.08.019
  18. Li G, Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Martins M, van der Stelt PF. Detection of in vitro proximal caries in storage phosphor plate radiographs scanned with different resolutions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:325-329. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/62591340
  19. Nair MK, Nair UP. Digital and advanced imaging in endodontics: a review. J Endod 2007;33:1-6.
  20. Naitoh M, Nakahara K, Suenaga Y, Gotoh K, Kondo S, Ariji E. Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography depicting mandibular neurovascular canal structures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:e25-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.027
  21. Cheng JG, Zhang ZL, Wang XY, Zhang ZY, Ma XC, Li G. Detection accuracy of proximal caries by phosphor plate and cone-beam computerized tomography images scanned with different resolutions. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1015-1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0599-7
  22. Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging 2013;26:813-820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7
  23. Haiter-Neto F, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008;37:18-22. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/87103878
  24. D’Addazio PS, Campos CN, Ozcan M, Teixeira HG, Passoni RM, Carvalho AC. A comparative study between cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs in diagnosis of simulated endodontic complications. Int Endod J 2011;44:218-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01802.x
  25. Hassan B, Metska ME, Ozok AR, van der Stelt P, Wesselink PR. Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth by a cone beam computed tomography scan. J Endod 2009;35:719-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.01.022
  26. Bueno MR, Estrela C, De Figueiredo JA, Azevedo BC. Map-reading strategy to diagnose root perforations near metallic intracanal posts by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37:85-90.
  27. Wilkinson T, Maryniuk G. The correlation between sagittal anatomic sections and computerized tomography of the TMJ. J Craniomandibular Pract 1983;1:37-45.
  28. Solar P, Ulm C, Lill W, Imhof H, Watzek G, Blahout R, Gruber H, Matejka M. Precision of three-dimensional CTassisted model production in the maxillofacial area. Eur Radiol 1992;2:473-477.
  29. Casselman JW, Quirynen M, Lemahieu SF, Baert AL, Bonte J. Computed tomography in the determination of anatomical landmarks in the perspective of endosseous oral implant installation. J Head Neck Pathol 1988;7:255-264.
  30. Youssefzadeh S, Gahleitner A, Dorffner R, Bernhart T, Kainberger FM. Dental Vertical Root Fractures: Value of CT in Detection. Radiology J 1999;210:545-549. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.210.2.r99ja20545
  31. Iikubo M, Kobayashi K, Mishima A, Shimoda S, Daimaruya T, Igarashi C, Imanaka M, Yuasa M, Sakamoto M, Sasano T. Accuracy of intraoral radiography, multidetector helical CT, and limited cone-beam CT for the detection of horizontal tooth root fracture. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108:e70-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.07.009
  32. Baxter BS, Sorenson JA. Factors affecting the measurement of size and CT number in computed tomography. Invest Radiol 1981;16:337-341. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198107000-00017
  33. Shaha AR. Preoperative evaluation of the mandible in patients with carcinoma of the floor of mouth. Head Neck 1991;13:398-402. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.2880130504
  34. Fava LR, Dummer PM. Periapical radiographic techniques during endodontic diagnosis and treatment. Int Endod J 1997;30:250-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb00705.x
  35. Venskutonis T, Juodzbalys G, Nackaerts O, Mickeviciene L. Influence of voxel size on the diagnostic ability of cone-beam computed tomography to evaluate simulated root perforations. Oral Radiol 2013;29:151-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-013-0125-5
  36. Hovland EJ, Dumsha TC. Problems in the management of tooth resorption. Problem solving in endodontics. 3rd ed., St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1997. p253-276.
  37. Carvalho-Sousa B, Almeida-Gomes F, Carvalho PR, Maniglia-Ferreira C, Gurgel-Filho ED, Albuquerque DS. Filling lateral canals: evaluation of different filling techniques. Eur J Dent 2010;4:251-256.
  38. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MDCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol 2009;71:461-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.002
  39. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018

피인용 문헌

  1. Incidence of pulp sensibility loss of anterior teeth after paramedian insertion of orthodontic mini-implants in the anterior maxilla vol.13, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-016-0134-9
  2. Image analysis for dental bone quality assessment using CBCT imaging vol.694, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/694/1/012065
  3. Identification of the Procedural Accidents During Root Canal Preparation Using Digital Intraoral Radiography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography vol.62, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1515/amma-2016-0028
  4. Effect of exposure parameters of cone beam computed tomography on metal artifact reduction around the dental implants in various bone densities vol.19, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-019-0334-4