A Comparison of Cone-beam Computed Tomography with Periapical Radiography in the Detection of Separated Instruments Retained in the Apical Third of Root Canal–filled Teeth

Rosen, Eyal; Venezia, Nuphar Blau; Azizi, Hadas; Kamburoğlu, Kıvanç; Meirowitz, Avi; Ziv‐Baran, Tomer; Tsesis, Igor

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.016

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another factor that can influence image quality is the voxel size, which can range from 0.085 to 0.4 mm, depending on the technical specifications of each CBCT apparatus (Rosen et al , Koç et al ). Although smaller voxel sizes act to improve the spatial resolution thus providing more detail in the image (Cebe et al ), a higher dose of radiation is necessary to generate high‐quality images (Venskutonis et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the guidelines of AAE & AAOMR Joint Position Statement () and ESE (), CBCT examinations are indicated only in cases where two‐dimensional techniques do not provide sufficient information for a diagnosis and treatment plan, due to the high radiation dosage and cost when compared to intraoral radiographs (Koç et al ). In the present study, intraoral radiographs were not included, since their use in the detection of fractured instruments is well documented (Rosen et al , Ramos Brito et al ) and have also been compared with CBCT images (Rosen et al , Ramos Brito et al ). Also, the main objective of the present study was to evaluate the use of the MAR tool, which is only available for CBCT images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Again, it can be inferred that the MAR tool is not effective in the presence of lower quantity of artefacts. Moreover, comparing CBCT systems, the Picasso Trio had greater image noise than OP300, except for the trabecular region, which can be explained by the fact that trabecular bone is a Another factor that can influence image quality is the voxel size, which can range from 0.085 to 0.4 mm, depending on the technical specifications of each CBCT apparatus (Rosen et al 2016, Koc ß et al 2018. Although smaller voxel sizes act to improve the spatial resolution thus providing more detail in the image (Cebe et al 2017), a higher dose of radiation is necessary to generate high-quality images (Venskutonis et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use of the metal artefact reduction tool in the identification of fractured endodontic instruments in cone‐beam computed tomography

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the influence of the metal artefact reduction (MAR) tool in the diagnosis of fractured instruments in root canals of extracted mandibular molars, with or without root canal fillings. Methodology The root canals of 31 mandibular molars were divided into four groups: (i) the control group, without root fillings; (ii) the fracture group, without fillings and with fractured files; (iii) the fill group, with root filling; and (iv) the fill/fracture group, root filled and with fractured files. The following instruments were used as fractured endodontic instruments: stainless steel hand files, NiTi reciprocating files and NiTi rotary files. Each tooth was inserted in a dry mandible to obtain cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) images using a CBCT OP300 3D Maxio (Instrumentarium Dental, Tuusula, Finland) and Picasso Trio (Vatech, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea), with and without application of the MAR tool. All images were evaluated by three radiologists for the presence or absence of fractured files on a 5‐point scale. The diagnostic accuracy (area under ROC curve) was calculated. Image noise was measured in regions of trabecular and cortical bone and soft tissue. The comparison between the ROC curve values with the MAR tool enabled or disabled was performed using a t‐test. A t‐test was also employed for comparing image noise when the MAR tool was enabled and disabled. The significance level was set at 5%. Results The use of the MAR tool did not influence the diagnostic accuracy for identifying fractured endodontic instruments in root canals with and without fillings in both CBCT systems (P > 0.05), nor did it influence the image noise (P > 0.05). Conclusions The MAR tool on these two devices did not increase the detection of fractured endodontic instruments and did not reduce image noise using extracted mandibular molars. Therefore, the MAR tool is not recommended for evaluation of fractured endodontic instruments in teeth with and without root fillings in mandibular molars.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of the metal artefact reduction tool in the identification of fractured endodontic instruments in cone‐beam computed tomography

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Superimpositions still constitute an impediment in multi‐rooted teeth (Rosen et al . , Ramos Brito et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The diagnostic efficacy of CBCT imaging in complex endodontic situations has been evaluated (D'Addazio et al 2010, Shemesh et al 2011, Eskandarloo et al 2012, Rosen et al 2016, Verner et al 2016. Common issues studied were instrument fracture, perforation and over-or underfilling of the root canal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ability to detect endodontic complications using three different cone beam computed tomography units with and without artefact reduction modes: an ex vivo study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To assess observer performance in detecting endodontic complications using three different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) units with and without the application of artefact reduction modes. Methodology The study involved 40 freshly extracted human mandibular teeth (n = 10 per group) and divided randomly into four endodontic complication groups. Group 1) Instrument fracture; Group 2) Strip perforation; Group 3) Canal underfilling; and Group 4) Canal overfilling. Images of each tooth were obtained using three different CBCT units offering artefact reduction algorithms: the ProMax 3D Max, the Pax Flex 3D and the Dentri S. Four observers evaluated the images for the presence/absence of the four simulated endodontic complications. Weighted kappa coefficients and intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to reveal the intra‐ and inter‐observer agreement for each imaging mode, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the observers’ performance. DeLong tests were used to compare the results for each image mode and observer using a significance level of α = 0.05. Results In each of the four simulated endodontic complication groups, no significant differences were observed with and without application of artefact reduction for any of the three CBCT units tested. Only two significant differences were detected, and both were between the ProMax 3D Max at low mode AR and ProMax 3D Max without AR: observer 2 in group 1 (P = 0.0001) and observer 4 in group 4 (P = 0.0256). Conclusion For each of the three CBCT units tested, application of artefact reduction for detecting endodontic complications is not recommended as a routine tool.

show abstract

Dental Implants Biological Complications: Tooth Preservation Reevaluated

Nemcovsky

Rosen

2019

Endodontic-Periodontal Lesions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Comparison of Cone-beam Computed Tomography with Periapical Radiography in the Detection of Separated Instruments Retained in the Apical Third of Root Canal–filled Teeth

Cited by 23 publications

References 28 publications

Use of the metal artefact reduction tool in the identification of fractured endodontic instruments in cone‐beam computed tomography

Use of the metal artefact reduction tool in the identification of fractured endodontic instruments in cone‐beam computed tomography

Ability to detect endodontic complications using three different cone beam computed tomography units with and without artefact reduction modes: an ex vivo study

Dental Implants Biological Complications: Tooth Preservation Reevaluated

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About