Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions

Vandana Kumar, Lauren Gossett, Ashley Blattner, Laura Iwasaki, Karen Williams, Jeffrey Nickel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) might be more accurate in identifying radicular surface lesions compared with digital periapical radiography. In this study, we compared these techniques in detecting simulated root resorption lesions. Methods: A porcine mandible was used to support 10 human maxillary central incisors. CBCT and digital periapical radiographic images were generated before and after the introduction of standardized and sequentially larger root defects on either the mesial or the lingual root surfaces. The images were randomly labeled and evaluated by 3 examiners. Each image was classified according to defect size (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). Results: Interrater reliability was acceptable (0.856 ≤P ≤0.981). The location of the root defect (mesial vs lingual) had no significant effect on the evaluation of defect size. Both periapical radiographs and CBCT were slightly better at detecting lingual defects than mesial defects (75% vs 65% and 65% vs 60%, respectively), but these effects were not statistically significant (P = 0.49 and P = 0.74, respectively). The mean percentages of correctly diagnosed defect sizes were 65% for CBCT and 75% for periapical radiographs. Examiners using CBCT images tended to overestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.481) and correctly categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 80%, 45%, and 90% of the time, respectively. Examiners using periapical radiographs tended to underestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.636) and categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 100%, 50%, and 100% of the time, respectively. Conclusions: There was no difference in accuracy of identifying defects between periapical radiographs and CBCT images.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume139
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiographic Image Enhancement
Tooth Root
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Tongue
Tooth
Root Resorption
Incisor
Mandible
Reproducibility of Results
Swine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions. / Kumar, Vandana; Gossett, Lauren; Blattner, Ashley; Iwasaki, Laura; Williams, Karen; Nickel, Jeffrey.

In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 139, No. 6, 01.06.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dcbb5ede5e3244a0babff6ad6f6adf80,
title = "Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions",
abstract = "Introduction: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) might be more accurate in identifying radicular surface lesions compared with digital periapical radiography. In this study, we compared these techniques in detecting simulated root resorption lesions. Methods: A porcine mandible was used to support 10 human maxillary central incisors. CBCT and digital periapical radiographic images were generated before and after the introduction of standardized and sequentially larger root defects on either the mesial or the lingual root surfaces. The images were randomly labeled and evaluated by 3 examiners. Each image was classified according to defect size (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). Results: Interrater reliability was acceptable (0.856 ≤P ≤0.981). The location of the root defect (mesial vs lingual) had no significant effect on the evaluation of defect size. Both periapical radiographs and CBCT were slightly better at detecting lingual defects than mesial defects (75{\%} vs 65{\%} and 65{\%} vs 60{\%}, respectively), but these effects were not statistically significant (P = 0.49 and P = 0.74, respectively). The mean percentages of correctly diagnosed defect sizes were 65{\%} for CBCT and 75{\%} for periapical radiographs. Examiners using CBCT images tended to overestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.481) and correctly categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 80{\%}, 45{\%}, and 90{\%} of the time, respectively. Examiners using periapical radiographs tended to underestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.636) and categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 100{\%}, 50{\%}, and 100{\%} of the time, respectively. Conclusions: There was no difference in accuracy of identifying defects between periapical radiographs and CBCT images.",
author = "Vandana Kumar and Lauren Gossett and Ashley Blattner and Laura Iwasaki and Karen Williams and Jeffrey Nickel",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions

AU - Kumar, Vandana

AU - Gossett, Lauren

AU - Blattner, Ashley

AU - Iwasaki, Laura

AU - Williams, Karen

AU - Nickel, Jeffrey

PY - 2011/6/1

Y1 - 2011/6/1

N2 - Introduction: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) might be more accurate in identifying radicular surface lesions compared with digital periapical radiography. In this study, we compared these techniques in detecting simulated root resorption lesions. Methods: A porcine mandible was used to support 10 human maxillary central incisors. CBCT and digital periapical radiographic images were generated before and after the introduction of standardized and sequentially larger root defects on either the mesial or the lingual root surfaces. The images were randomly labeled and evaluated by 3 examiners. Each image was classified according to defect size (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). Results: Interrater reliability was acceptable (0.856 ≤P ≤0.981). The location of the root defect (mesial vs lingual) had no significant effect on the evaluation of defect size. Both periapical radiographs and CBCT were slightly better at detecting lingual defects than mesial defects (75% vs 65% and 65% vs 60%, respectively), but these effects were not statistically significant (P = 0.49 and P = 0.74, respectively). The mean percentages of correctly diagnosed defect sizes were 65% for CBCT and 75% for periapical radiographs. Examiners using CBCT images tended to overestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.481) and correctly categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 80%, 45%, and 90% of the time, respectively. Examiners using periapical radiographs tended to underestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.636) and categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 100%, 50%, and 100% of the time, respectively. Conclusions: There was no difference in accuracy of identifying defects between periapical radiographs and CBCT images.

AB - Introduction: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) might be more accurate in identifying radicular surface lesions compared with digital periapical radiography. In this study, we compared these techniques in detecting simulated root resorption lesions. Methods: A porcine mandible was used to support 10 human maxillary central incisors. CBCT and digital periapical radiographic images were generated before and after the introduction of standardized and sequentially larger root defects on either the mesial or the lingual root surfaces. The images were randomly labeled and evaluated by 3 examiners. Each image was classified according to defect size (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). Results: Interrater reliability was acceptable (0.856 ≤P ≤0.981). The location of the root defect (mesial vs lingual) had no significant effect on the evaluation of defect size. Both periapical radiographs and CBCT were slightly better at detecting lingual defects than mesial defects (75% vs 65% and 65% vs 60%, respectively), but these effects were not statistically significant (P = 0.49 and P = 0.74, respectively). The mean percentages of correctly diagnosed defect sizes were 65% for CBCT and 75% for periapical radiographs. Examiners using CBCT images tended to overestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.481) and correctly categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 80%, 45%, and 90% of the time, respectively. Examiners using periapical radiographs tended to underestimate defect sizes (κ = 0.636) and categorized teeth with no, mild-moderate, and severe defects 100%, 50%, and 100% of the time, respectively. Conclusions: There was no difference in accuracy of identifying defects between periapical radiographs and CBCT images.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958075797&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958075797&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.018

DO - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.11.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 21640865

AN - SCOPUS:79958075797

VL - 139

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 6

ER -