Our aim was to compare the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and periapical radiographs (PRs) in detecting vertical root fractures (VRFs) and to assess the influence of root canal filling (RCF) on fracture visibility. Eighty teeth were endodontically prepared and divided into four groups. The teeth in groups A and B were artificially fractured, and teeth in groups C and D were not. Groups A and C were root filled. Four observers evaluated the CBCT scans and PR images. Sensitivity and specificity for VRF detection of CBCT were 79.4% and 92.5% and for PR were 37.1% and 95%, respectively. The specificity of CBCT was reduced (p = 0.032) by the presence of RCF, but its overall accuracy was not influenced (p = 0.654). Both the sensitivity (p = 0.006) and overall accuracy (p = 0.008) of PRs were reduced by the presence of RCF. The results showed an overall higher accuracy for CBCT (0.86) scans than PRs (0.66) for detecting VRF.

No abstract

BackgroundIn implant dentistry, three-dimensional (3D) imaging can be realised by dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), offering volumetric data on jaw bones and teeth with relatively low radiation doses and costs. The latter may explain why the market has been steadily growing since the first dental CBCT system appeared two decades ago. More than 85 different CBCT devices are currently available and this exponential growth has created a gap between scientific evidence and existing CBCT machines. Indeed, research for one CBCT machine cannot be automatically applied to other systems.MethodsSupported by a narrative review, recommendations for justified and optimized CBCT imaging in oral implant dentistry are provided.ResultsThe huge range in dose and diagnostic image quality requires further optimization and justification prior to clinical use. Yet, indications in implant dentistry may go beyond diagnostics. In fact, the inherent 3D datasets may further allow surgical planning and transfer to surgery via 3D printing or navigation. Nonetheless, effective radiation doses of distinct dental CBCT machines and protocols may largely vary with equivalent doses ranging between 2 to 200 panoramic radiographs, even for similar indications. Likewise, such variation is also noticed for diagnostic image quality, which reveals a massive variability amongst CBCT technologies and exposure protocols. For anatomical model making, the so-called segmentation accuracy may reach up to 200 μm, but considering wide variations in machine performance, larger inaccuracies may apply. This also holds true for linear measures, with accuracies of 200 μm being feasible, while sometimes fivefold inaccuracy levels may be reached. Diagnostic image quality may also be dramatically hampered by patient factors, such as motion and metal artefacts. Apart from radiodiagnostic possibilities, CBCT may offer a huge therapeutic potential, related to surgical guides and further prosthetic rehabilitation. Those additional opportunities may surely clarify part of the success of using CBCT for presurgical implant planning and its transfer to surgery and prosthetic solutions.ConclusionsHence, dental CBCT could be justified for presurgical diagnosis, preoperative planning and peroperative transfer for oral implant rehabilitation, whilst striving for optimisation of CBCT based machine-dependent, patient-specific and indication-oriented variables.

An excellent correlation exists between bone volume fraction and bone density as assessed on micro-CT and MSCT, respectively. This suggests that bone density measurements could be used to estimate bone microstructural parameters. A strong correlation also was found between CBCT gray values and BV/TV and their gold standards, suggesting the potential of this modality in bone quality assessment at implant site.

No abstract