Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital periapical radiography, panoramic radiography, and cone-beam computed tomography in the assessment of alveolar bone loss

被引:33
|
作者
Takeshita, Wilton Mitsunari [1 ]
Iwaki, Lilian Cristina Vessoni [2 ]
Da Silva, Mariliani Chicarelli [2 ]
Tonin, Renata Hernandes [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Sergipe, Dept Dent, Claudio Batista S-N,Cidade Univ, BR-49060100 Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil
[2] Univ Estadual Maringa, Maringa, Parana, Brazil
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Alveolar bone loss; cone-beam computerized tomography; conventional periapical radiography; diagnosis; panoramic radiography;
D O I
10.4103/0976-237X.137930
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different radiographic methods in the assessment of proximal alveolar bone loss (ABL). Materials and Methods: ABL, the distance between cement-enamel junction and alveolar bone crest, was measured in 70 mandibular human teeth - directly on the mandibles (control), using conventional periapical radiography with film holders (Rinn XCP and Han-Shin), digital periapical radiography with complementary metal-oxide semiconductor sensor, conventional panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Three programs were used to measure ABL on the images: Image tool 3.0 (University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA), Kodak Imaging 6.1 (Kodak Dental Imaging 6.1, Carestream Health (R) , Rochester, NY, USA), and i-CAT vision 1.6.20. Statistical analysis used ANOVA and Tukeys test at 5% significance level. Results: The tomographic images showed the highest means, whereas the lowest were found for periapical with Han-Shin. Controls differed from periapical with Han-Shin (P < 0.0001). CBCT differed from panoramic (P = 0.0130), periapical with Rinn XCP (P = 0.0066), periapical with Han-Shin (P < 0.0001), and digital periapical (P = 0.0027). Conventional periapicals with film holders differed from each other (P = 0.0007). Digital periapical differed from conventional periapical with Han-Shin (P = 0.0004). Conclusions: Conventional periapical with Han-Shin film holder was the only method that differed from the controls. CBCT had the closest means to the controls.
引用
收藏
页码:318 / 323
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiography in Detecting Small Periapical Lesions
    Tsai, Patrick
    Torabinejad, Mahmoud
    Rice, Dwight
    Azevedo, Bruno
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2012, 38 (07) : 965 - 970
  • [2] Accuracy of digital periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in detecting external root resorption
    Creanga, Adriana Gabriela
    Geha, Hassem
    Sankar, Vidya
    Teixeira, Fabricio B.
    McMahan, Clyde Alex
    Noujeim, Marcel
    [J]. IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY, 2015, 45 (03) : 153 - 158
  • [3] Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis
    Estrela, Carlos
    Bueno, Mike Reis
    Leles, Claudio Rodrigues
    Azevedo, Bruno
    Azevedo, Jose Ribamar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2008, 34 (03) : 273 - 279
  • [4] Accuracy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiography in Apical Periodontitis Diagnosis
    Lopez, Fernanda Ullmann
    Poli Kopper, Patricia Maria
    Cucco, Carolina
    Bona, Alvaro Della
    Poli de Figueiredo, Jose Antonio
    Vier-Pelisser, Fabiana Vieira
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2014, 40 (12) : 2057 - 2060
  • [5] Comparing the In Vivo Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Periapical Radiography with Cone-beam Computed Tomography for the Detection of Vertical Root Fracture
    Chavda, Rajesh
    Mannocci, Francesco
    Andiappan, Manoharan
    Patel, Shanon
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2014, 40 (10) : 1524 - 1529
  • [6] Assessment of maxillary third molars with panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography
    Jung, Yun-Hoa
    Cho, Bong-Hae
    [J]. IMAGING SCIENCE IN DENTISTRY, 2015, 45 (04) : 233 - 240
  • [7] Cone-beam computed tomography or conventional radiography for localising of maxillary impacted canines?Question: In patients with maxillary impacted canines is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional radiography?
    Niloufar Amintavakoli
    Silvia Spivakovsky
    [J]. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2018, 19 (1) : 22 - 23
  • [8] An Ex Vivo Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiography in the Detection of Furcal Perforations
    Kamburoglu, Kivanc
    Yeta, Elif Naz
    Yilmaz, Funda
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2015, 41 (05) : 696 - 702
  • [9] Diagnostic Accuracy of Periapical Radiography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Identifying Root Canal Configuration of Human Premolars
    Sousa, Thiago Oliveira
    Haiter-Neto, Francisco
    Leandro Nascimento, Eduarda Helena
    Peroni, Leonardo Vieira
    Freitas, Deborah Queiroz
    Hassan, Bassam
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2017, 43 (07) : 1176 - 1179
  • [10] Correlation between Alveolar Cleft Measurements Performed with Periapical Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
    de Oliveira, Kamilla Costa
    Cruz, Mila Araujo
    Alves, Murilo Barros
    Danda Maia, Maria Madalena
    Gaiao, Leonilson
    [J]. PESQUISA BRASILEIRA EM ODONTOPEDIATRIA E CLINICA INTEGRADA, 2012, 12 (01): : 19 - 25