Display options
Cite
Abdinian M, Razavian H, Jenabi N. In Vitro Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Digital Periapical Radiography for Detection of Vertical Root Fracture in Posterior Teeth. J Dent (Shiraz). 2016;17(2):84-90
Abdinian, M., Razavian, H., & Jenabi, N. (2016). In Vitro Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Digital Periapical Radiography for Detection of Vertical Root Fracture in Posterior Teeth. Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 17(2), 84-90.
Abdinian, Mehrdad, et al. "In Vitro Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Digital Periapical Radiography for Detection of Vertical Root Fracture in Posterior Teeth." Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) vol. 17,2 (2016): 84-90.
Abdinian M, Razavian H, Jenabi N. In Vitro Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Digital Periapical Radiography for Detection of Vertical Root Fracture in Posterior Teeth. J Dent (Shiraz). 2016 Jun;17(2):84-90. PMID: 27284552; PMCID: PMC4885677.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Dent (Shiraz). 2016 Jun;17(2):84-90.

In Vitro Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Digital Periapical Radiography for Detection of Vertical Root Fracture in Posterior Teeth.

Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)

Mehrdad Abdinian, Hamid Razavian, Nastaran Jenabi

Affiliations

  1. Dental Implants Research Center, Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
  2. Torabinejad Dental Research Center, Dept. of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
  3. Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Orthodontics, Dental School, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

PMID: 27284552 PMCID: PMC4885677

Abstract

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: The diagnosis of vertical root fracture (VRF) is a challenging task.

PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging with digital periapical radiography (DPR) made by three different horizontal angels (20°mesial, 0° and 20° distal) for accurate diagnosis of VRF.

MATERIALS AND METHOD: Among 120 posterior teeth included in this study, 60 were vertically fractured. Fractured and non-fractured teeth were randomly distributed into three groups defined as group 1 with no filling in the root canal, group 2 with gutta-percha in the canal, and group 3 with the intracanal post. All samples were placed in a dry mandible and imaged with CBCT and DPR techniques. Two blind observers investigated the images.

RESULTS: CBCT had higher sensitivity but lower specificity compared with DPR, except for the intracanal post group in which the sensitivity of DPR was higher; though the chi-square test showed the differences to be statistically insignificant. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CBCT and DPR were reduced in the cases that gutta-percha or post were present in the canal. Inter-observer agreement was higher for CBCT. A set of three DPRs with different horizontal angels were significantly more sensitive for VRF recognition than a single orthogonal DPR.

CONCLUSION: Based on our results, there was no significant difference between CBCT and a set of three DPRs with different angulations for VRF detection in posterior teeth. Therefore, it is suggested to consider DPRs with three different horizontal angels (20°mesial, 0° and 20° distal) for radiographic evaluation before CBCT examination.

Keywords: Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography; Dental Digital Radiography; Diagnosis; Tooth Fracture

References

  1. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Dec;108(6):939-45 - PubMed
  2. Dent Traumatol. 2005 Feb;21(1):32-6 - PubMed
  3. Quintessence Int. 2013 Jul;44(7):467-74 - PubMed
  4. J Endod. 2010 Oct;36(10 ):1712-6 - PubMed
  5. J Oral Sci. 2010 Dec;52(4):593-7 - PubMed
  6. Int Endod J. 2014 Aug;47(8):735-46 - PubMed
  7. Aust Endod J. 2013 Aug;39(2):48-56 - PubMed
  8. J Endod. 2006 Dec;32(12):1160-3 - PubMed
  9. J Endod. 2014 Oct;40(10 ):1524-9 - PubMed
  10. J Endod. 2014 Oct;40(10 ):1530-6 - PubMed
  11. Scand J Dent Res. 1970;78(5):397-403 - PubMed
  12. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 May;101(5):652-7 - PubMed
  13. Dent Traumatol. 2013 Feb;29(1):41-6 - PubMed
  14. Int Endod J. 2014 Jan;47(1):26-31 - PubMed
  15. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1980 Mar;49(3):243-53 - PubMed
  16. J Endod. 1983 Aug;9(8):338-46 - PubMed
  17. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Feb;41(2):91-5 - PubMed
  18. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014 Nov;118(5):593-602 - PubMed
  19. Int Endod J. 2013 Dec;46(12 ):1140-52 - PubMed
  20. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:55-77 - PubMed
  21. J Endod. 2009 May;35(5):719-22 - PubMed
  22. J Endod. 2001 Jan;27(1):46-8 - PubMed

Publication Types