4.5 Article

The ability of cone-beam computed tomography to detect simulated buccal and lingual recesses in root canals

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 45, Issue 8, Pages 724-729

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02025.x

Keywords

canal recesses; cone-beam computed tomography; oval canal; periapical radiography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liang Y-H, Yuan M, Li G, Shemesh H, Wesselink PR, Wu M-K. The ability of cone-beam computed tomography to detect simulated buccal and lingual recesses in root canals. International Endodontic Journal, 45, 724729, 2012. Abstract Aim To compare the ability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital periapical radiographs (PR) to detect simulated tissue-occupied recesses in root canals. Methodology A standard canal was created in 30 extracted mandibular premolar roots. Each root was longitudinally split into buccal and lingual halves. In 20 teeth, a standard groove, 4 mm in length, 0.5 mm deep and 0.3 mm wide, was prepared on each root half and filled with radiolucent plasticine (a modelling clay), simulating tissue-occupied buccal and lingual recesses. In the other 10 teeth, no grooves were cut. Each root was reassembled and filled with laterally compacted gutta-percha and sealer. PR and CBCT were used to detect the plasticine-filled grooves. The images were pooled and blindly evaluated by three calibrated examiners (A, B and C). A chi-square test was used to analyse the data. Results Examiner A, B, C detected grooves on CBCT scans in 20, 20 and 23 teeth, respectively, of which 19, 18 and 19 were true positives. The accuracy of CBCT in diagnosing plasticine-filled grooves was 8292% for three examiners, significantly higher than the accuracy of PR (3033%; P < 0.001). Conclusions Cone-beam computed tomography accurately detected simulated tissue-occupied buccal and lingual recesses.

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