AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of intraoral digital periapical radiography with that of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the detection of artificial periapical bone defects in dry human jaws. METHODOLOGY: Small and large artificial periapical lesions were prepared in the periapical region of the distal root of six molar teeth in human mandibles. Scans and radiographs were taken with a charged couple device (CCD) digital radiography system and a CBCT scanner before and after each periapical lesion had been created. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves as well as the reproducibility of each technique were determined. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity was 0.248 and 1.0 for intraoral radiography and CBCT respectively, i.e. these techniques correctly identified periapical lesions in 24.8% and 100% of cases, respectively. Both imaging techniques had specificity values of 1.0. The ROC Az values were 0.791 and 1.000 for intraoral radiography and CBCT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With intraoral radiography, external factors (i.e. anatomical noise and poor irradiation geometry), which are not in the clinician's control, hinder the detection of periapical lesions. CBCT removes these external factors. In addition, it allows the clinician to select the most relevant views of the area of interest resulting in improved detection of the presence and absence of artificial periapical lesions.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of intraoral digital periapical radiography with that of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the detection of artificial periapical bone defects in dry human jaws. METHODOLOGY: Small and large artificial periapical lesions were prepared in the periapical region of the distal root of six molar teeth in human mandibles. Scans and radiographs were taken with a charged couple device (CCD) digital radiography system and a CBCT scanner before and after each periapical lesion had been created. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves as well as the reproducibility of each technique were determined. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity was 0.248 and 1.0 for intraoral radiography and CBCT respectively, i.e. these techniques correctly identified periapical lesions in 24.8% and 100% of cases, respectively. Both imaging techniques had specificity values of 1.0. The ROC Az values were 0.791 and 1.000 for intraoral radiography and CBCT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With intraoral radiography, external factors (i.e. anatomical noise and poor irradiation geometry), which are not in the clinician's control, hinder the detection of periapical lesions. CBCT removes these external factors. In addition, it allows the clinician to select the most relevant views of the area of interest resulting in improved detection of the presence and absence of artificial periapical lesions.
Authors: R Spin-Neto; J Mudrak; L H Matzen; J Christensen; E Gotfredsen; A Wenzel Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 2.419