Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

OPEN ACCESS

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
2 "Multidetector computed tomography"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Research Article
Detection of root perforations using conventional and digital intraoral radiography, multidetector computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography
Abbas Shokri, Amir Eskandarloo, Maruf Noruzi-Gangachin, Samira Khajeh
Restor Dent Endod 2015;40(1):58-67.   Published online November 13, 2014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.1.58
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Objectives

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional intraoral (CI) radiography, photostimulable phosphor (PSP) radiography, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for detection of strip and root perforations in endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and Methods

Mesial and distal roots of 72 recently extracted molar were endodontically prepared. Perforations were created in 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm diameter around the furcation of 48 roots (strip perforation) and at the external surface of 48 roots (root perforation); 48 roots were not perforated (control group). After root obturation, intraoral radiography, CBCT and MDCT were taken. Discontinuity in the root structure was interpreted as perforation. Two observers examined the images. Data were analyzed using Stata software and Chi-square test.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of CI, PSP, CBCT and MDCT in detection of strip perforations were 81.25% and 93.75%, 85.42% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 72.92% and 87.50%, respectively. For diagnosis of root perforation, the sensitivity and specificity were 87.50% and 93.75%, 89.58% and 91.67%, 97.92% and 85.42%, and 81.25% and 87.50%, respectively. For detection of strip perforation, the difference between CBCT and all other methods including CI, PSP and MDCT was significant (p < 0.05). For detection of root perforation, only the difference between CBCT and MDCT was significant, and for all the other methods no statistically significant difference was observed.

Conclusions

If it is not possible to diagnose the root perforations by periapical radiographs, CBCT is the best radiographic technique while MDCT is not recommended.

  • 20 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer
Case Report
Dilemmas pertaining to three canals in the mesiobuccal root of a maxillary second molar: a case report
Ankit Arora, Shashi Rashmi Acharya, Muliya Vidya Saraswathi, Padmaja Sharma, Amber Ather
Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(3):172-177.   Published online August 23, 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.3.172
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub

The mesiobuccal root of the maxillary molars is well known to pose a hindrance during endodontic therapy. Presented here is a case of a maxillary left second molar where three canals were located in its mesiobuccal root with the use of visual and diagnostic aids. Difficulties encountered during the process of unveiling the tooth's internal anatomy were discussed. The dilemmas encountered pertained to the root canal configuration, the nomenclature of the extra canals, and the justification for the presence of a third canal. The root canal configuration of 3-2-1 was confirmed for the mesiobuccal root using information gained from clinical, radiographic, and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scan findings. This case demonstrates the need for efforts to locate extra canals in the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary molars as their internal anatomy remains a mystery.

  • 19 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
Close layer
TOP