Panoramic Radiography vs. CBCT in the Evaluation of the Maxillary Third Molar Roots.

Background and Objectives: A comprehensive understanding of the position of third molar roots and adjacent structures, such as the maxillary sinus (MS), is essential for safe extractions. Diagnostic imaging plays a fundamental role in achieving accurate treatment planning. This study aimed to compare panoramic radiography (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the evaluation of maxillary third molar roots and their relationship with the MS. Materials and Methods: Two trained radiologists evaluated third molar images. The number of roots, morphology (fused/conical, divergent, dilacerated, or atypical), and their relationship with the MS in PR and CBCT were registered. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using the weighted Kappa test. Results: Regarding the number and morphology of the roots, Kappa values showed moderate (κ = 0.42) and fair agreement (κ = 0.38), respectively. Regarding the proximity with the MS, most of the roots showed close contact (30.6%), or 1/3 of root superimposition (35%), in PR evaluation, while in CBCT, the third molars were in contact with the MS floor (32%), and with alveolar domes (27.2%). Conclusions: PR is a moderately reliable image technique to identify the number of roots and root morphology of maxillary third molars. PR, however, does not provide any radiographic signs that clearly indicate the anatomical relationship between the maxillary third molar roots and the maxillary sinus detected in CBCT images.

Comparison of CBCT and panoramic radiography for the assessment of bone loss and root resorption on the second molar associated with third molar impaction: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the use of cone beam CT (CBCT) changes the diagnosis of external root resorption (ERR) or marginal bone loss (MBL) involving a second molar adjacent to an impacted third molar. METHODS: A systematic search was applied in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest. Studies assessing the detection of ERR or MBL in a second molar adjacent to an impacted third molar through CBCT and panoramic radiography (PAN) were included. Prevalence and agreement between PAN and CBCT on the detection of ERR and MBL were collected. The risk of bias was assessed using the MAStARI. RESULTS: A total of 593 papers were identified, and after a 2-phase selection, 5 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. Regarding ERR, its prevalence in PAN was reported from 5.31 to 19.5% and from 22.8 to 62.0% in CBCT. The percentage of agreement varied from 28.5 to 74.0%. The prevalence of MBL varied from 21.9 to 62.9% in PAN, while those values varied from 21.6 to 80% in CBCT images. The percentage of agreement between PAN and CBCT for the detection of MBL ranged from 66.0 to 85.0%. Four studies presented low risk of bias and one had moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: More ERR and MBL are assessed in CBCT compared to PAN. There is a considerable agreement between PAN and CBCT assessment of ERR and MBL, however, mostly related to the absence of the pathology rather its presence.