INTRODUCTION: The most frequent adverse effect of canine impaction is resorption of the adjacent incisors. The subjective image quality and the radiographic diagnostic accuracy for detection of simulated canine-induced external root resorption lesions in maxillary lateral incisors were compared among 6 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems in vitro. METHODS: A child cadaver skull in the early mixed dentition was obtained. This skull had an impacted maxillary left canine and allowed a reliable simulation. Simulated root resorption cavities were created in 8 extracted maxillary left lateral incisors by the sequential use of 0.16-mm diameter round burs in the distopalatal root surface. Cavities of varying depths were drilled in the middle or apical thirds of each tooth root according to 3 setups: slight (0.15, 0.20, and 0.30 mm), moderate (0.60 and 1.00 mm), and severe (1.50, 2.00, and 3.00 mm) resorption. The lateral incisors, including 2 intact teeth, were repositioned individually in the alveolus with approximal contacts to the impacted maxillary left canine. Six sets of radiographic images were obtained with 3D Accuitomo-XYZ Slice View Tomograph (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan), Scanora 3D CBCT (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland), Galileos 3D Comfort (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany), Picasso Trio (E-WOO Technology, Giheung-gu, Republic of Korea), ProMax 3D (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland), and Kodak 9000 3D (Trophy, Croissy-Beaubourg, France) for each tooth setup. The CBCT images were acquired and subsequently analyzed by 12 observers. Linear models for repeated measures were used to compare the CBCT systems for the image quality and the degree of agreement between the diagnosed severity of root resorption and the true severity. RESULTS: The differences in the image quality between CBCT systems were statistically significant (P <0.001). The root resorption scores between CBCT systems showed a significantly higher score for the ProMax when compared with the Galileos and the Kodak. However, the differences in agreement between the diagnosed severity of root resorption and the true severity for all resorption sizes were not significantly different (P >0.05) among the different CBCT systems. CONCLUSIONS: High image quality is important when detecting root resorption. The CBCT systems used in this study had high accuracy with no significant differences between them in the detection of the severity of root resorption.
INTRODUCTION: The most frequent adverse effect of canine impaction is resorption of the adjacent incisors. The subjective image quality and the radiographic diagnostic accuracy for detection of simulated canine-induced external root resorption lesions in maxillary lateral incisors were compared among 6 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems in vitro. METHODS: A child cadaver skull in the early mixed dentition was obtained. This skull had an impacted maxillary left canine and allowed a reliable simulation. Simulated root resorption cavities were created in 8 extracted maxillary left lateral incisors by the sequential use of 0.16-mm diameter round burs in the distopalatal root surface. Cavities of varying depths were drilled in the middle or apical thirds of each tooth root according to 3 setups: slight (0.15, 0.20, and 0.30 mm), moderate (0.60 and 1.00 mm), and severe (1.50, 2.00, and 3.00 mm) resorption. The lateral incisors, including 2 intact teeth, were repositioned individually in the alveolus with approximal contacts to the impacted maxillary left canine. Six sets of radiographic images were obtained with 3D Accuitomo-XYZ Slice View Tomograph (J. Morita, Kyoto, Japan), Scanora 3D CBCT (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland), Galileos 3D Comfort (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany), Picasso Trio (E-WOO Technology, Giheung-gu, Republic of Korea), ProMax 3D (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland), and Kodak 9000 3D (Trophy, Croissy-Beaubourg, France) for each tooth setup. The CBCT images were acquired and subsequently analyzed by 12 observers. Linear models for repeated measures were used to compare the CBCT systems for the image quality and the degree of agreement between the diagnosed severity of root resorption and the true severity. RESULTS: The differences in the image quality between CBCT systems were statistically significant (P <0.001). The root resorption scores between CBCT systems showed a significantly higher score for the ProMax when compared with the Galileos and the Kodak. However, the differences in agreement between the diagnosed severity of root resorption and the true severity for all resorption sizes were not significantly different (P >0.05) among the different CBCT systems. CONCLUSIONS: High image quality is important when detecting root resorption. The CBCT systems used in this study had high accuracy with no significant differences between them in the detection of the severity of root resorption.
Authors: Georg D Strbac; Andrea Foltin; André Gahleitner; Hans-Peter Bantleon; Georg Watzek; Thomas Bernhart Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Michael H Bertl; Clemens Frey; Kristina Bertl; Katharina Giannis; André Gahleitner; Georg D Strbac Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.573