Abstract
BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit with digital intraoral radiography technique for detecting periodontal defects.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsCBCT has the highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting various periodontal defects among the radiographic modalities examined.
Highlights
This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit with digital intraoral radiography technique for detecting periodontal defects
In total 14 dehiscences, 13 fenestrations, eight tunnel and 16 without periodontal defect were used in the study
Significant difference was found between phosphor plates (PSP) and CBCT
Summary
This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit with digital intraoral radiography technique for detecting periodontal defects. Information derived from probing the gingival tissues in association with diagnostic imaging provides guidelines for assessing the alveolar bone height and checking for the presence of bone defects [1, 2]. Used two-dimensional (2D) modalities include bitewing, periapical, and panoramic radiography. These modalities are suitable because they are acquired, cheap and provide high-resolution images. All of these modalities can provide important diagnostic information but none of them without limitations [3]. They are limited by overlapping anatomical structures [4, 5], difficulty in standardization [1,2,3,4,5], and by underestimating the size and occurrence of bone defects [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
