Assessment of correlation between clinical, radiographic, microbiological, and histopathological examinations in identification of pulpal diseases - a single-centre study

Abstract

AimThis study aimed to analyse the presence of pulpitis using different techniques and compare the findings of the various examination methods. MethodsA total of 108 patients were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups: 56 patients whose pulp samples were sent for histopathological analysis and 52 patients whose samples were sent for microbiological analysis. All participants underwent endodontic procedures, with clinical evaluation and assessment using periapical radiography. Bacteria were isolated and identified using agar culture and VITEK 2 identification cards. ResultsHistopathology confirmed chronic pulpitis in 33 samples (58.9%) and acute pulpitis in 23 samples (41.1 %). For chronic pulpitis, the histopathological diagnosis agreed with the clinical evaluation diagnosis in 65.2% of cases, and a similar percentage of agreement was observed for acute pulpitis. Chronic pulpitis was observed in 34.8% of patients on clinical examination; however, according to histopathology, these cases were acute. Dilated blood vessels were detected in 56.5% of patients with acute pulpitis and 15.2% of patients with chronic pulpitis. Neutrophilic leucocytes were observed in 43.5% of patients with acute pulpitis and 69.7% of patients with chronic pulpitis. Lymphocytes were observed in 17.4% of acute pulpitis samples but zero chronic pulpitis samples. Microbiological analysis identified gram-positive bacilli in 22 samples, gram-positive cocci in 51 samples, and fungi in 2 samples. Acute pulpitis was typically found to be associated with anaerobic Clostridium bifermentans, aerobic Streptococcus mitis, and Granulicatella elegans, whereas chronic pulpitis was more often associated with two facultative anaerobes, Streptococcus oralis and Streptococcus mitis. ConclusionComparison of clinical, radiographic, and histological examination techniquesrevealed several notable discrepancies. Radiographic imaging only suggested the presence of pulpal pathologies; therefore, histopathological analysis of the pulp material was still ultimately required to verify the clinical diagnosis and exclude other pathologies. Although histopathology remains the gold standard for assessing pulpal disease, performing additional examinations may provide the most comprehensive, and perhaps the most effective, approach.