Cone-beam computed tomography versus periapical radiograph for diagnosing external root resorption: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and periapical radiographs (PR) for the detection of external root resorption (ERR). An electronic search in databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), was performed until August 2016. A manual search of relevant journals and reference lists of enrolled studies was conducted. The studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT or PR for ERR, with simulated ERR as the reference test, were considered eligible. The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT and PR was statistically pooled using a bivariate model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the stability of the overall results in the meta-analysis. A total of 15 studies were included in this systematic review. The pooled results showed that CBCT had significantly higher sensitivity (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.96) and area under curve (0.96; 95% CI: 0.77-0.96) than PR (sensitivity: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56-0.78; area under curve: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.90). No difference in sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve between conventional and digital PR was observed. Currently available evidence suggests that CBCT could be reliable to detect the presence of ERR in clinical practice and has a higher diagnostic efficacy than PR.