Wenjian Zhang1, Shazia Rajani2, Bing-Yan Wang3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Biomedical Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7500 Cambridge Street, Suite 5366, Houston, TX, 77054, USA. Wenjian.Zhang@uth.tmc.edu. 2. Dental Hygiene Program, School of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7500 Cambridge Street, Suite 5366, Houston, TX, 77054, USA. 3. Department of Periodontics and Dental Hygiene, School of Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7500 Cambridge Street, Suite 5366, Houston, TX, 77054, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been widely used in many fields of dentistry. However, little is known about the accuracy of CBCT for evaluation of periodontal status. The objective of this study was to compare and correlate periodontal assessments among CBCT, clinical attachment loss (CAL) measurement, and periapical (PA)/bitewing (BW) radiography. METHODS: Eighty patients (28 males, 52 females; age range, 19-84 years) from the University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston were evaluated retrospectively. Measurements were taken on the central incisors, canines, and first molars of the right maxilla and left mandible. CAL was extracted from periodontal charts. The radiographic distance from the cementum-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar crest was measured for tooth mesial and distal sites on PA/BW and CBCT images using MiPacs software and Anatomage Invivo software, respectively. One-way ANOVA and Pearson analysis were performed for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The CEJ-crest distances for CBCT, PA/BW, and CAL were 2.56 ± 0.12, 2.04 ± 0.12, and 2.08 ± 0.17 mm (mean ± SD), respectively. CBCT exhibited larger values than the other two methods (p < 0.05). There were highly significant positive correlations among CBCT, PA/BW, and CAL measurements at all examined sites (p < 0.001). The Pearson correlation coefficient was higher for CBCT with CAL relative to PA/BW with CAL, but the difference was not significant (r = 0.64 and r = 0.55, respectively, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the suitability of CBCT for periodontal assessment. Further studies are necessary to optimize the measurement methodology with CBCT.
OBJECTIVES: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been widely used in many fields of dentistry. However, little is known about the accuracy of CBCT for evaluation of periodontal status. The objective of this study was to compare and correlate periodontal assessments among CBCT, clinical attachment loss (CAL) measurement, and periapical (PA)/bitewing (BW) radiography. METHODS: Eighty patients (28 males, 52 females; age range, 19-84 years) from the University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston were evaluated retrospectively. Measurements were taken on the central incisors, canines, and first molars of the right maxilla and left mandible. CAL was extracted from periodontal charts. The radiographic distance from the cementum-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar crest was measured for tooth mesial and distal sites on PA/BW and CBCT images using MiPacs software and Anatomage Invivo software, respectively. One-way ANOVA and Pearson analysis were performed for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The CEJ-crest distances for CBCT, PA/BW, and CAL were 2.56 ± 0.12, 2.04 ± 0.12, and 2.08 ± 0.17 mm (mean ± SD), respectively. CBCT exhibited larger values than the other two methods (p < 0.05). There were highly significant positive correlations among CBCT, PA/BW, and CAL measurements at all examined sites (p < 0.001). The Pearson correlation coefficient was higher for CBCT with CAL relative to PA/BW with CAL, but the difference was not significant (r = 0.64 and r = 0.55, respectively, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the suitability of CBCT for periodontal assessment. Further studies are necessary to optimize the measurement methodology with CBCT.
Authors: Brently A Grimard; Matt J Hoidal; Michael P Mills; James T Mellonig; Pirkka V Nummikoski; Brian L Mealey Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.993