OBJECTIVES: To compare the severity of external cervical resorption (ECR) observed in periapical (PA) images and cone beam CT (CBCT) using the Heithersay classification system and pulp involvement; and to assess inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for three observers. METHODS: CBCT examination was performed in 245 teeth (in 190 patients, mean age 40 years, range 12-82) with ECR diagnosed in PA images. Three observers scored the severity of ECR using the Heithersay classification system (severity class 1-4) and pulp involvement (yes/no) in both PA images and CBCT. Percentage concordance and κ-statistics described observer variation in PA images and CBCT for both inter- and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: For all three observers, the ECR score was the same in the two modalities in more than half of cases (average 59%; obs1: 54%, obs2: 63%, obs3: 61%). However, in 38% (obs1: 44%, obs2: 33%, obs3: 36%) of the cases, the observers scored more severe ECR in CBCT than in PA images (p < 0.001). The ECR score changed to a less severe score in CBCT only in 3% (obs1: 1%, obs2: 4%, obs3: 4%). For pulp involvement, 14% (obs1: 7%, obs2: 20%, obs3: 15%) of the cases changed from "no" in PA images to "yes" in CBCT. In general, κ values were higher for CBCT than for PA images for both the Heithersay classification score and pulp involvement. CONCLUSIONS: ECR was generally scored as more severe in CBCT than PA images using the Heithersay classification and also more cases had pulp involvement in CBCT.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the severity of external cervical resorption (ECR) observed in periapical (PA) images and cone beam CT (CBCT) using the Heithersay classification system and pulp involvement; and to assess inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for three observers. METHODS: CBCT examination was performed in 245 teeth (in 190 patients, mean age 40 years, range 12-82) with ECR diagnosed in PA images. Three observers scored the severity of ECR using the Heithersay classification system (severity class 1-4) and pulp involvement (yes/no) in both PA images and CBCT. Percentage concordance and κ-statistics described observer variation in PA images and CBCT for both inter- and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: For all three observers, the ECR score was the same in the two modalities in more than half of cases (average 59%; obs1: 54%, obs2: 63%, obs3: 61%). However, in 38% (obs1: 44%, obs2: 33%, obs3: 36%) of the cases, the observers scored more severe ECR in CBCT than in PA images (p < 0.001). The ECR score changed to a less severe score in CBCT only in 3% (obs1: 1%, obs2: 4%, obs3: 4%). For pulp involvement, 14% (obs1: 7%, obs2: 20%, obs3: 15%) of the cases changed from "no" in PA images to "yes" in CBCT. In general, κ values were higher for CBCT than for PA images for both the Heithersay classification score and pulp involvement. CONCLUSIONS: ECR was generally scored as more severe in CBCT than PA images using the Heithersay classification and also more cases had pulp involvement in CBCT.
Authors: N F Boyd; C Wolfson; M Moskowitz; T Carlile; M Petitclerc; H A Ferri; E Fishell; A Gregoire; M Kiernan; J D Longley; I S Simor; A B Miller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1982-03 Impact factor: 13.506