Journal of Endodontics
Volume 38, Issue 2 , Pages 131-136 , February 2012

Does a Combination of Two Radiographs Increase Accuracy in Detecting Acid-induced Periapical Lesions and Does It Approach the Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scanning?

  • Elif Soğur, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress requests for reprints to Dr Elif Soğur, Ege Universitesi, Dishekimligi Fakultesi, Oral Diagnoz and Rad AD, Bornova, 35100, Izmir, Turkey.
    • ,
  • Hans-Göran Gröndahl, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Institute of Postgraduate Dental Education, Jönköping, Sweden
    • ,
  • B. Güniz Baksı, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
    • ,
  • Ali Mert, DDS, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

References 

  1. Walton RE. Endodontic radiographic technics. Dent Radiog Photog. 1973;46:51–59
  2. Sewerin I, Andersen V, Stoltze K. Influence of projection angles upon position of cementoenamel junction on radiographs. Scand J Dent Res. 1987;95:74–81
  3. Klein RM, Blake SA, Nattress BR, et al. Evaluation of x-ray beam angulation for successful twin canal identification in mandibular incisors. Int Endod J. 1997;30:58–63
  4. Lozano A, Forner L, Llena C. In vitro comparison of root-canal measurements with conventional and digital radiology. Int Endod J. 2002;35:542–550
  5. Martínez-Lozano MA, Forner-Navarro L, Sánchez-Cortés JL. Analysis of radiologic factors in determining premolar root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;88:719–722
  6. Naoum HJ, Love RM, Chandler NP, et al. Effect of X-ray beam angulation and intraradicular contrast medium on radiographic interpretation of lower first molar root canal anatomy. Int Endod J. 2003;36:12–19
  7. Sewerin IB. Influence of X-ray beam angulation upon the radiographic image of proximal carious lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1981;9:74–78
  8. Benn DK, Watson TF. Correlation between film position, bite-wing shadows, clinical pitfalls, and the histologic size of approximal lesions. Quintessence Int. 1989;20:131–141
  9. van der Stelt PF, Ruttiman UE, Webber RL, et al. In vitro study into the influence of X-ray beam angulation on the detection of artificial caries defects on bitewing radiographs. Caries Res. 1989;23:334–341
  10. Shrout MK, Weaver J, Potter BJ, et al. Spatial resolution and angular alignment tolerance in radiometric analysis of alveolar bone change. J Periodontol. 1996;67:41–45
  11. Folk RB, Thorpe JR, McClanahan SB, et al. Comparison of two different direct digital radiography systems for the ability to detect artificially prepared periapical lesions. J Endod. 2005;31:304–306
  12. Sewerin IP. Radiographic control of fixture-abutment connection in Brånemark implants technique. Scand J Dent Res. 1989;97:559–564
  13. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Gröndahl K, et al. Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;103:114–119
  14. Cotton TP, Geisler TM, Holden DT, et al. Endodontic applications of cone-beam volumetric tomography. J Endod. 2007;33:1121–1132
  15. Patel S, Ricucci D, Durak C, et al. Internal root resorption: a review. J Endod. 2010;36:1107–1121
  16. Michetti J, Maret D, Mallet JP, et al. Validation of cone beam computed tomography as a tool to explore root canal anatomy. J Endod. 2010;36:1187–1190
  17. Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A. Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. An ex vivo study in pig jaws. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11:101–106
  18. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Leles CR, et al. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis. J Endod. 2008;34:273–279
  19. Sogur E, Baksi BG, Gröndahl HG, et al. Detectability of chemically induced periapical lesions by limited cone beam computed tomography, intra-oral digital and conventional film radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:458–464
  20. Noujeim M, Prihoda T, Langlais R, et al. Evaluation of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography in the detection of simulated interradicular bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:156–162
  21. de Paula-Silva FW, Wu MK, Leonardo MR, et al. Accuracy of periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography scans in diagnosing apical periodontitis using histopathological findings as a gold standard. J Endod. 2009;35:1009–1012
  22. Patel S, Dawood A, Mannocci F, et al. Detection of periapical bone defects in human jaws using cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiography. Int Endod J. 2009;42:507–515
  23. Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent. 2009;2009:634567;Epub 2010 Mar 31
  24. Koening L, Parks E, Analou M, et al. The impact of image compression on diagnostic quality of digital images for detection of chemically-induced periapical lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:37–43
  25. Meier AW, Brown CE, Miles DA, et al. Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using direct digital imaging. J Endod. 1996;22:516–520
  26. Tirrell BC, Miles DA, Brown CE, et al. Interpretation of chemically created lesions using direct digital imaging. J Endod. 1996;22:74–78
  27. Nair MK, Ludlow JB, Tyndall DA, et al. Periodontitis detection efficacy of film and digital images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85:608–612
  28. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology. 2003;229:3–8
  29. Kositbowornchai S, Basiw M, Promwang Y, et al. Accuracy of diagnosing occlusal caries using enhanced digital images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33:236–240
  30. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
  31. Ozen T, Kamburoğlu K, Cebeci AR, et al. Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using 2 different dental cone-beam computerized tomography units, an intraoral digital sensor, and conventional film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:426–432
  32. Bornstein MM, Lauber R, Sendi P, et al. Comparison of periapical radiography and limited cone-beam computed tomography in mandibular molars for analysis of anatomical landmarks before apical surgery. J Endod. 2011;37:151–157
  33. Iwai K, Arai Y, Hashimoto K, et al. Estimation of effective dose from limited cone beam X-ray CT examination. Dent Radiol. 2000;40:251–259
  34. Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R, et al. Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;129:222–226
  35. Okano T, Harata Y, Sugihara Y, et al. Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2009;38:79–85

 Zero-degree film and storage phosphor plate images and limited cone-beam computed tomography images used in this study were previously used as a part of a PhD thesis (19).

PII: S0099-2399(11)01202-7

doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.013

Journal of Endodontics
Volume 38, Issue 2 , Pages 131-136 , February 2012

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution