4.5 Article

The detection of periapical pathosis using periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography - Part 1: pre-operative status

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 45, Issue 8, Pages 702-710

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01989.x

Keywords

cone beam computed tomography; intraoral radiographs; periapical lesions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patel S, Wilson R, Dawood A, Mannocci F. The detection of periapical pathosis using periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography Part 1: pre-operative status. International Endodontic Journal, 45, 702710, 2012. Abstract Aim Part 1 of this 2 part study aims to compare the prevalence of periapical lesions on individual roots viewed with intraoral (periapical) radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) of teeth treatment planned for endodontic treatment. Methodology Diagnostic periapical radiographs and CBCT scans were taken of 151 teeth in 132 patients diagnosed with primary endodontic disease. The presence or absence of periapical lesions was assessed by a consensus panel consisting of two calibrated examiners, a consensus agreement was reached if there was any disagreement. The panel viewed the images under standardised conditions. Part 2 will compare the radiographic outcome 1 year after completion of primary root canal treatment. Results Two hundred and seventy-three paired roots were assessed with both radiological systems, periapical lesions were present in 55 (20%) and absent in 218 (80%) roots assessed with periapical radiographs. When the same 273 sets of roots were assessed with CBCT, lesions were present in 130 (48%) and absent in 143 (52%) roots. Seventy-five additional roots were detected with CBCT. Conclusion The limitations of periapical radiographs which may hinder the detection of periapical lesions are overcome with CBCT. This results in firstly, more roots being assessed, and secondly, more periapical lesions being detected with CBCT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available