2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.11.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevalence and Size of Periapical Radiolucencies Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Teeth without Apparent Intraoral Radiographic Lesions: A New Periapical Index with a Clinical Recommendation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
33
1
11

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
33
1
11
Order By: Relevance
“…Patel et al (2012a) detected periapical lesions in 20% and 48% of 123 teeth planned for primary root canal treatment when PR and CBCT were used, respectively. Similar findings have been reported in other studies (Davies et al 2015, Uraba et al 2016, Torabinejad et al 2018 (Table 2).…”
Section: Detection Of Apical Periodontitissupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Patel et al (2012a) detected periapical lesions in 20% and 48% of 123 teeth planned for primary root canal treatment when PR and CBCT were used, respectively. Similar findings have been reported in other studies (Davies et al 2015, Uraba et al 2016, Torabinejad et al 2018 (Table 2).…”
Section: Detection Of Apical Periodontitissupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Although this work demonstrated an almost perfect agreement for the apical extent of root canal filling and a substantial concordance for root canal filling density between DPR and CBCT scores, this concordance was only moderate amongst DPR-PAI and CBCT-PAI assessments. In agreement to the former, other authors have demonstrated inconsistencies in the findings obtained by the two imaging methods (Kanagasingam et al 2017, Torabinejad et al 2018. Accordingly, the treatment outcome as determined by DPR, the apical extent and density of root fillings as diagnosed by DPR and the outcome predictors identified only by using DPR data could be incorrect (Liang et al 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…, Torabinejad et al . ). Accordingly, the treatment outcome as determined by DPR, the apical extent and density of root fillings as diagnosed by DPR and the outcome predictors identified only by using DPR data could be incorrect (Liang et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…No histopathological evaluation was performed to verify the finding, but the authors speculated if this widening of PDL should be considered as a normal tissue reaction to root canal treatment/part of healing and hence not regarded as pathology warranting further endodontic treatment (Torabinejad et al . ). Furthermore, root filling materials contain radiopaque substances that may induce artefacts, which may decrease the diagnostic value of the CBCT (Schulze et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The difference in relation to treatment status of the root may be supported by a recent study where almost 20% of root filled teeth were assessed with a width of the periodontal ligament space (PDL) >1.0 mm in CBCT, even though no symptoms were reported by the patient and no AP was found in PR. No histopathological evaluation was performed to verify the finding, but the authors speculated if this widening of PDL should be considered as a normal tissue reaction to root canal treatment/part of healing and hence not regarded as pathology warranting further endodontic treatment (Torabinejad et al 2018). Furthermore, root filling materials contain radiopaque substances that may induce artefacts, which may decrease the diagnostic value of the CBCT (Schulze et al 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%