BACKGROUND: Owing to a lack of symptoms and difficult visualization in routine intraoral radiographs, diagnosis of external root resorptions can be challenging. AIM: The goal of this study was to compare two image acquisition methods, intraoral radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), in the diagnosis of external resorption. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four maxillary and mandibular bicuspids were divided into three groups. Perforations measuring 0.3 and 0.6 mm in diameter and 0.15 and 0.3 mm in depth, respectively, were made on the lingual root surfaces in thirty teeth, and four were used as controls. Next, teeth were mounted on an apparatus and radiographed at mesial, distal, and orthoradial angulations. CBCT images were also taken. The analysis of the intraoral radiographic and tomographic images was carried out by two experts using standardized scores. Data were then compared statistically. RESULTS: A strong agreement between the examiners was observed in both diagnosis methods, the intraoral radiographic (r = 0.93) and the tomographic analysis (r = 1.0). Tomography had higher statistically significant detection values than intraoral radiography (P < 0.05). In intraoral radiographs, the detection was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the mandibular bicuspids, compared with their maxillary counterparts. The ability to detect 0.6-mm perforations by intraoral radiography was significantly higher than that of 0.3-mm perforations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cone beam computed tomography showed better diagnostic ability compared with intraoral radiography, regardless of the tooth or the dimensions of the resorption evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Owing to a lack of symptoms and difficult visualization in routine intraoral radiographs, diagnosis of external root resorptions can be challenging. AIM: The goal of this study was to compare two image acquisition methods, intraoral radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), in the diagnosis of external resorption. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four maxillary and mandibular bicuspids were divided into three groups. Perforations measuring 0.3 and 0.6 mm in diameter and 0.15 and 0.3 mm in depth, respectively, were made on the lingual root surfaces in thirty teeth, and four were used as controls. Next, teeth were mounted on an apparatus and radiographed at mesial, distal, and orthoradial angulations. CBCT images were also taken. The analysis of the intraoral radiographic and tomographic images was carried out by two experts using standardized scores. Data were then compared statistically. RESULTS: A strong agreement between the examiners was observed in both diagnosis methods, the intraoral radiographic (r = 0.93) and the tomographic analysis (r = 1.0). Tomography had higher statistically significant detection values than intraoral radiography (P < 0.05). In intraoral radiographs, the detection was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the mandibular bicuspids, compared with their maxillary counterparts. The ability to detect 0.6-mm perforations by intraoral radiography was significantly higher than that of 0.3-mm perforations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cone beam computed tomography showed better diagnostic ability compared with intraoral radiography, regardless of the tooth or the dimensions of the resorption evaluated.
Authors: Amanda K H Andresen; Malin V Jonsson; Gerhard Sulo; Dorina S Thelen; Xie-Qi Shi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 2.419