Saulo L Sousa Melo1, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos2, Nathan Holton3, Veeratrishul Allareddy4, Veerasathpurush Allareddy3, Cinthia Pereira Machado Tabchoury5, Francisco Haiter-Neto6, Axel Ruprecht7. 1. Department of Oral Pathology, Radiology and Medicine, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic address: saulo-sousamelo@uiowa.edu. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. Department of Oral Pathology, Radiology and Medicine, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 5. Department of Physiological Science, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 7. Departments of Oral Pathology, Radiology and Medicine; Radiology; and Anatomy and Cell Biology, Colleges of Dentistry and Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the influence of cone-beam computed tomography scans on the diagnosis of chemically simulated external root resorption. METHODS: One hundred extracted anterior teeth were selected. Subsurface demineralization was induced on a limited area of the apical third of the root of 49 teeth. Each tooth was placed in an empty socket of a partially edentulous dry mandible. Cone-beam computed tomography images were obtained according to 3 protocols: (1) half scan, 0.40-mm voxel size; (2) full scan, 0.40-mm voxel size; and (3) full scan, 0.125-mm voxel size. Three observers evaluated the images. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve were compared with the Cochran Q and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Protocol 3 had the highest sensitivity (81.63%), accuracy (80.67%), and area under the curve (0.807). There were statistically significant differences between protocol 3 and the other 2 protocols (P <0.001). The specificity of protocol 1 (84.97%) was greater than that of protocols 2 (69.93%) and 3 (79.74%); however, a statistically significant difference was found only between protocols 1 and 2 (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A more dedicated, high-resolution scan should be acquired when one intends to investigate the early stage of external root resorption during orthodontic treatment. However, this does not imply that all orthodontic patients should be subjected to high-dose cone-beam computed tomography scans.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the influence of cone-beam computed tomography scans on the diagnosis of chemically simulated external root resorption. METHODS: One hundred extracted anterior teeth were selected. Subsurface demineralization was induced on a limited area of the apical third of the root of 49 teeth. Each tooth was placed in an empty socket of a partially edentulous dry mandible. Cone-beam computed tomography images were obtained according to 3 protocols: (1) half scan, 0.40-mm voxel size; (2) full scan, 0.40-mm voxel size; and (3) full scan, 0.125-mm voxel size. Three observers evaluated the images. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve were compared with the Cochran Q and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Protocol 3 had the highest sensitivity (81.63%), accuracy (80.67%), and area under the curve (0.807). There were statistically significant differences between protocol 3 and the other 2 protocols (P <0.001). The specificity of protocol 1 (84.97%) was greater than that of protocols 2 (69.93%) and 3 (79.74%); however, a statistically significant difference was found only between protocols 1 and 2 (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A more dedicated, high-resolution scan should be acquired when one intends to investigate the early stage of external root resorption during orthodontic treatment. However, this does not imply that all orthodontic patients should be subjected to high-dose cone-beam computed tomography scans.
Authors: Katarína Mikušková; Peter Vaňuga; Katarína Adamicová; Dagmar Statelová; Mária Janíčková; Igor Malachovský; Tomáš Siebert Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.747