Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Detection of Separated Endodontic Instruments

Abstract

IntroductionThis study compared the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of different imaging diagnostic protocols, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital periapical radiography (DPR), in identifying separated endodontic instruments in filled root canals. MethodsOne hundred eight root canals from 36 mandibular molars were prepared and obturated. Of these, 84 were filled without separated instruments, and 24 were filled with the presence of a separated instrument (stainless steel hand file or reciprocating instrument). Subsequently, different CBCT imaging protocols were acquired: i-CAT Classic (ICC) (0.25-mm isotropic voxel), i-CAT Next Generation (ICN) (0.125-mm isotropic voxel), and PreXion 3D (PXD) (0.09-mm isotropic voxel). Moreover, a DPR exam was obtained (08 mA, 70 kVp, and exposure time of 0.2 seconds). Two calibrated endodontists evaluated each image for the presence or absence of fractured files on a 5-point scale, ranging from definitely absent to definitely present. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity measures for each method were estimated. The data were evaluated by Fisher exact test and binomial test. ResultsNine instruments were identified in DPR (37.5%) and none in the CBCT protocols (P > .05). The type of instrument (stainless steel hand file or reciprocating instrument) did not influence the identification of the separated instrument (P > .05). This study showed that DPR is the most accurate and sensitive imaging technique, with 83.3% and 37.5%, respectively. ConclusionsDPR is the better imaging diagnostic exam to evaluate the presence of separated endodontic instruments inside a root canal in comparison with the ICC, ICN, and PXD tomographic protocols. However, most of the separated instruments were not identified.