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

Abstract

ObjectivesThis 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 MethodsMesial 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsIf it is not possible to diagnose the root perforations by periapical radiographs, CBCT is the best radiographic technique while MDCT is not recommended.

Effect of exposure parameters of cone beam computed tomography on metal artifact reduction around the dental implants in various bone densities

“…The flat panel detector has higher contrast and spatial resolution than IIT/CCD. On the other hand, artifact and pixel noise of IIT/CCD are higher than those of flat panel detectors [17]. Thus, the difference in detectors used can be another reason for different results obtained by Parsa et al [16], in use of the NewTom unit compared to ours.…”

Incidence of pulp sensibility loss of anterior teeth after paramedian insertion of orthodontic mini-implants in the anterior maxilla

“…Because no root injury could be diagnosed on the available plain film radiographs and all patients were free of symptoms after treatment, no additional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed, although this would have been the modality of choice to diagnose the exact location of the possible root injury site [34]. Therefore, we cannot completely exclude root perforations due to OMI insertion and this has to be kept in mind when considering the results of this investigation.…”

Enhancing the three-dimensional visualization of a foreign object using Mimics software

“…Subsequently, Abbas et al in 2015 compared the accuracy of different radiographic methods for detection of perforations at the bifurcations (strip) and the roots of molar teeth. CBCT presented with the most promising results compared with images that were obtained using conventional intraoral film, photostimulable phosphor sensor and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) [8].…”