S Kanagasingam1, C X Lim1, C P Yong1, F Mannocci2, S Patel1,2. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2. Department of Endodontology, King's College Dental Institute, London, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting apical periodontitis (AP) using histopathological findings as a reference standard. METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from unclaimed bodies due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP by digital PR with a central view (DP group), digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (DPS group) and CBCT scans. All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR and CBCT were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.27, 0.38 and 0.89 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. CBCT had specificity and positive predictive value of 1.0 whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive value of 0.99. The negative predictive value was 0.39, 0.44 and 0.81 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.629 (DP), 0.688 (DPS), and 0.943 (CBCT). CONCLUSIONS: All imaging techniques had similar specificity and positive predictive values. Additional parallax views increased the diagnostic accuracy of PR. CBCT had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy in detecting AP compared to PR, using human histopathological findings as a reference standard.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting apical periodontitis (AP) using histopathological findings as a reference standard. METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from unclaimed bodies due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP by digital PR with a central view (DP group), digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (DPS group) and CBCT scans. All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR and CBCT were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.27, 0.38 and 0.89 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. CBCT had specificity and positive predictive value of 1.0 whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive value of 0.99. The negative predictive value was 0.39, 0.44 and 0.81 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.629 (DP), 0.688 (DPS), and 0.943 (CBCT). CONCLUSIONS: All imaging techniques had similar specificity and positive predictive values. Additional parallax views increased the diagnostic accuracy of PR. CBCT had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy in detecting AP compared to PR, using human histopathological findings as a reference standard.
Authors: Florin Eggmann; Thomas Connert; Julia Bühler; Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt; Roland Weiger; Clemens Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Fernando José Mota de Almeida; Dalya Hassan; Ghada Nasir Abdulrahman; Malin Brundin; Nelly Romani Vestman Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Ernest W N Lam; Alan S Law; Ruby H N Nguyen; Sarah Basile; Obadah Austah; Gregg H Gilbert; Paul A Lindauer; Michael J Romano; Donald R Nixdorf; Jeffrey L Fellows Journal: J Endod Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.422