Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study

BMC Oral Health

Kaan Orhan³  Sebnem Kursun¹  Mehmet Eray Kolsuz³  Nilsun Bagis² 

[1] Ministry of Health, Bolu Oral and Dental Health Centre, Bolu, 14000, Turkey;Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Ankara University, 06560, Besevler, Ankara, Turkey;Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ankara University, Ankara, 06560, Turkey

关键词: Tunnel;    Fenestrations;    Intra-oral radiography;    Periodontal defect;    CBCT;   

Others  :  1207630
DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-015-0046-2

 received in 2014-12-16, accepted in 2015-05-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit with digital intraoral radiography technique for detecting periodontal defects.

Methods

The study material comprised 12 dry skulls with maxilla and mandible. Artificial defects (dehiscence, tunnel, and fenestration) were created on anterior, premolar and molar teeth separately using burs. In total 14 dehiscences, 13 fenestrations, eight tunnel and 16 without periodontal defect were used in the study. These were randomly created on dry skulls. Each teeth with and without defects were images at various vertical angles using each of the following modalities: a Planmeca Promax Cone Beam CT and a Digora photostimulable phosphor plates. Specificity and sensitivity for assessing periodontal defects by each radiographic technique were calculated. Chi-square statistics were used to evaluate differences between modalities. Kappa statistics assessed the agreement between observers. Results were considered significant at P < 0.05.

Results

The kappa values for inter-observer agreement between observers ranged between 0.78 and 0.96 for the CBCT, and 0.43 and 0.72 of intraoral images. The Kappa values for detecting defects on anterior teeth was the least, following premolar and molar teeth both CBCT and intraoral imaging.

Conclusions

CBCT has the highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting various periodontal defects among the radiographic modalities examined.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Bagis et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jeffcoat MK. Current concepts in periodontal disease testing. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994; 125:1071-8.
• [2]Reddy MS. Radiographic methods in the evaluation of periodontal therapy. J Periodontol. 1992; 63:1078-84.
• [3]Mol A. Imaging methods in periodontology. Periodontol 2000. 2004; 34(Mol A):34-48.
• [4]Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging periodontal bone. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008; 37:319-24.
• [5]Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006; 77:1261-6.
• [6]Eickholz P, Kim T-S, Benn DK, Staehle HK. Accuracy of radiographic assessments of interproximal bone loss. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Oral Endod. 1998; 85:99-106.
• [7]Brägger U. Radiographic parameters: biological significance and clinical use. Periodontol 2000. 2005; 39:73-90.
• [8]Alamri HM, Sadrameli M, Alshalhoob MA, Sadrameli M, Alshehri MA. Applications of CBCT in dental practice: a review of the literature. Gen Dent. 2012; 60:390-400.
• [9]Benn DK. A review of the reliability of radiographic measurements in estimating alveolar bone changes. J Clin Periodontol. 1990; 17:14-21.
• [10]Braun X, Ritter L, Jervøe-Storm PM, Frentzen M. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT for periodontal lesions. Clin Oral Invest. 2014; 18:1229-36.
• [11]Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72:75-80.
• [12]Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am. 2008; 52:707-30.
• [13]Fuhrmann RAW, Wehrbein H, Langen HJ, Diedrich PR. Assessment of the dentate alveolar process with high resolution computed tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1995; 24:50-4.
• [14]Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Diagnostic validity (or acuity) of 2D CCD versus 3D CBCT images for assessing periodontal breakdown. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104:395-401.
• [15]Fleiner J, Hannig C, Schulze D, Stricker A, Jacobs R. Digital method for quantification of circumferential periodontal bone level using cone beam CT. Clin Oral Invest. 2013; 17:389-96.
• [16]Vasconcelos KF, Evangelista KM, Rodrigues CD, Estrela C, de Sousa TO, Silva MAG. Detection of periodontal bone loss using cone beam CT and intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41:64-9.
• [17]Ozmeric N, Kostioutchenko I, Hägler G, Frentzen M, Jervøe-Storm PM. Cone-beam computed tomography in assessment of periodontal ligament space: in vitro study on artificial tooth model. Clin Oral Invest. 2008; 12:233-9.
• [18]Grimard BA, Hoidal MJ, Mills MP, Mellonig JT, Nummikoskim PV, Mealey BL. Comparison of Clinical, Periapical Radiograph, and Cone-BeamVolume Tomography Measurement Techniques for Assessing Bone Level Changes Following Regenerative Periodontal Therapy. J Periodontol. 2009; 80:48-55.
• [19]Walter C, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Accuracy of three-dimensional imaging in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement. J Clin Periodontol. 2010; 37:436-41.
• [20]Vandenberghe B, Jacobs R, Yang J. Detection of periodontal bone loss using digital intraoral and cone beam computed tomography images: an in vitro assessment of bony and/or infrabony defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008; 37:252-60.
• [21]Mengel R, Candir M, Shiratori K, de-Jacoby LF. Digital Volume Tomography in the Diagnosis of Periodontal Defects: An In Vitro Study on Native Pig and Human Mandibles. J Periodontol. 2005; 76:665-73.
• [22]Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman&Hall, London; 1991.
• [23]Gomes-Filho IS, Sarmento VA, de Castro MS, da Costa NP, Cruz SS, Trindade SC et al.. Radiographic features of periodontal bone defects: evaluation of digitized images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007; 36:256-62.
• [24]Walter C, Kaner D, Berndt DC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Three-dimensional imaging as a pre-operative tool in decision making for furcation surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36:250-7.
• [25]Umetsubo OS, Gaia BF, Costa FF, Cavalcanti MG. Detection of simulated incipient furcation involvement by CBCT: an in vitro study using pig mandibles. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 26:341-7.
• [26]Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U et al.. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40:265-73.
• [27]Da Silveira PF, Fontana MP, Oliveira HW, Vizzotto MB, Montagner F, Silveira HL, et al. CBCT-based volume of simulated root resorption - influence of FOV and voxel size. Int Endod J. 2014, Oct 5. doi: 10.1111/iej.12390.
• [28]Schropp L, Alyass NS, Wenzel A, Stavropoulos A. Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012; 41:686-90.
• [29]Caldas MP, Moraes F, Perez M, Almeida S, Haiter-Neto F. Comparative evaluation among different materials to replace soft tissue in oral radiology studies. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18:264-7.
• [30]Blake GM, McKeeney DB, Chaya SC, Ryan PJ, Fogelman I. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry: the effects of beam hardening on bone density measurements. Med Phys. 1992; 19:4594-65.
• [31]Borg E, Kallqvist A, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Film and digital radiography for detection of simulated root resorption cavities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998; 86:110-4.
• [32]Cook JE, Cunningham JL. The assessment of fracture healing using dual x-ray absorptiometry: a feasibility study using phantoms. Phys Med Biol. 1995; 40:119-36.
• [33]Brand JW, Kuba RK, Braunreiter TC. An improved head-and neck phantom for radiation dosimetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989; 67:338-46.
• [34]Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Hechler S, Parissis N, Hlavacek M. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66:2130-5.
• [35]Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32:229-34.