OBJECTIVE: To determine how the diagnosis may or may not be influenced by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), comparing the diagnostic hypotheses obtained using images of panoramic radiographs and CBCT in cases of ameloblastoma, odontogenic keratocyst, and dentigerous cyst. STUDY DESIGN: Five cases were selected for each lesion. Panoramic radiographs and CBCT scans were analyzed by 15 dentists for the formulation of the diagnostic hypotheses. Two observers performed the analyses and measurement of qualitative and quantitative features of the lesions evaluated in the CBCT. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct diagnostic average between panoramic radiography and CBCT, but there was a significant difference in correct diagnostic average in the diagnosis of ameloblastoma using CBCT compared to panoramic radiography. Master's and PhD-level observers had greater correct diagnostic average in the diagnosis of odontogenic keratocyst using panoramic radiograph compared to specialists, with a significant difference. CONCLUSION: Cone-beam computed tomography images revealed that the ameloblastomas were greater in size and expansion compared to the odontogenic keratocyst and the dentigerous cysts. Ameloblastomas showed a higher incidence of multiloculated aspects compared to odontogenic keratocyst and dentigerous cysts. There were no differences between quantitative and qualitative features of odontogenic keratocyst and dentigerous cysts.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how the diagnosis may or may not be influenced by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), comparing the diagnostic hypotheses obtained using images of panoramic radiographs and CBCT in cases of ameloblastoma, odontogenic keratocyst, and dentigerous cyst. STUDY DESIGN: Five cases were selected for each lesion. Panoramic radiographs and CBCT scans were analyzed by 15 dentists for the formulation of the diagnostic hypotheses. Two observers performed the analyses and measurement of qualitative and quantitative features of the lesions evaluated in the CBCT. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct diagnostic average between panoramic radiography and CBCT, but there was a significant difference in correct diagnostic average in the diagnosis of ameloblastoma using CBCT compared to panoramic radiography. Master's and PhD-level observers had greater correct diagnostic average in the diagnosis of odontogenic keratocyst using panoramic radiograph compared to specialists, with a significant difference. CONCLUSION: Cone-beam computed tomography images revealed that the ameloblastomas were greater in size and expansion compared to the odontogenic keratocyst and the dentigerous cysts. Ameloblastomas showed a higher incidence of multiloculated aspects compared to odontogenic keratocyst and dentigerous cysts. There were no differences between quantitative and qualitative features of odontogenic keratocyst and dentigerous cysts.