OBJECTIVES: To compare two small-field-of-view (FOV) CBCT protocols with different voxel sizes and number of frames for the diagnosis of root and alveolar fractures in macerated canine maxillae. METHODS: 80 incisor teeth from the canine species were inserted in 80 anterior alveolar sockets of 20 canine maxillae. An operator randomly divided each maxilla site (80 sites in total) into 4 equal groups of 20 sites: 1 (sound tooth and non-fractured alveolar socket); 2 (sound tooth and fractured alveolar socket); 3 (fractured root and non-fractured alveolar socket); and 4 (fractured root and fractured alveolar socket). The CBCT images were obtained using two different protocols: normal (N) (voxel 0.20 mm, 400 frames and radiation exposure 5.6 mGy) and high definition (HD) (voxel 0.15 mm, 500 frames and radiation exposure 7.0 mGy). RESULTS: Sensitivity numbers for alveolar fractures were lower than specificity, resulting in comparable areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for both protocols. Sensitivity, specificity and AUC for N and HD protocols were very similar for root fractures. When comparing AUC for both N and HD protocols by submitting them to Student's t-test, the comparison among the curves produced statistically non-significant results for alveolar fractures and root fractures likewise. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that the elected protocol for the diagnosis of root and alveolar fractures was N. This protocol allowed similar diagnosis results than HD protocol; however, with a lower amount of radiation exposure for the patient (5.6 mGy for N vs 7.0 mGy for HD).
OBJECTIVES: To compare two small-field-of-view (FOV) CBCT protocols with different voxel sizes and number of frames for the diagnosis of root and alveolar fractures in macerated canine maxillae. METHODS: 80 incisor teeth from the canine species were inserted in 80 anterior alveolar sockets of 20 canine maxillae. An operator randomly divided each maxilla site (80 sites in total) into 4 equal groups of 20 sites: 1 (sound tooth and non-fractured alveolar socket); 2 (sound tooth and fractured alveolar socket); 3 (fractured root and non-fractured alveolar socket); and 4 (fractured root and fractured alveolar socket). The CBCT images were obtained using two different protocols: normal (N) (voxel 0.20 mm, 400 frames and radiation exposure 5.6 mGy) and high definition (HD) (voxel 0.15 mm, 500 frames and radiation exposure 7.0 mGy). RESULTS: Sensitivity numbers for alveolar fractures were lower than specificity, resulting in comparable areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for both protocols. Sensitivity, specificity and AUC for N and HD protocols were very similar for root fractures. When comparing AUC for both N and HD protocols by submitting them to Student's t-test, the comparison among the curves produced statistically non-significant results for alveolar fractures and root fractures likewise. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that the elected protocol for the diagnosis of root and alveolar fractures was N. This protocol allowed similar diagnosis results than HD protocol; however, with a lower amount of radiation exposure for the patient (5.6 mGy for N vs 7.0 mGy for HD).