In Vivo Detection of External Apical Root Resorption Induced by Apical Periodontitis Using Periapical Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Abstract Objective: To compare the accuracy of periapical radiography (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the detection of external apical root resorption (EARR) due to root canal contamination. Material and Methods: Dog's teeth with experimentally induced root resorption due to root canal contamination underwent or not root canal treatment (n=62). True positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN) in PR and CBCT diagnoses were determined using histopathologic findings as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy (TP + TN) in the diagnosis of EARR were calculated. Data were compared using chi-squared test (α=0.05). Results: EARR was detected in 35% of roots by PR, in 47% by CBCT, and in 50% of the roots by microscopy (p=0.03 PR versus microscopy; p=0.67 CBCT versus microscopy). Overall, CBCT produced more accurate diagnoses than PR (p=0.008). PR and CBCT allowed the identification of large resorption in 100% of the cases and showed the same accuracy. However, for small resorptions, PR showed an accuracy of 0.83, whereas CBCT showed an accuracy of 0.96 (p=0.003). Conclusion: Cone-beam computed tomography showed higher accuracy in detecting external apical root resorption of endodontic origin.

Accuracy of Conventional Periapical Radiography in Diagnosing Furcation Repair after Perforation Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Periapical radiography (PR) is a diagnostic tool to be used by professionals in clinical practice. The method presents limitations, and doubts still exist about its value to evaluate furcation perforation and the reparative process of hard or soft tissues after treatment. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PR as a diagnostic method to detect both resorption of the furcation area after induced experimental perforation and repair after perforation treatment using histopathological findings as a gold standard. METHODS: Thirty teeth of beagle dogs with furcation perforation were filled with Biodentine (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France), ProRoot White mineral trioxide aggregate (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), or gutta-percha and examined using PR and histology. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: PR detected repair and reabsorption of furcation perforation in 55% and 48% of the teeth, respectively. Histologic analysis showed furcation perforation in 66% and 21% of the teeth, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of PR for the detection of repair were 0.84 and 1, respectively, whereas for resorption detection, the values were 0.43 and 0.65, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy for PR was 0.89 and 0.72 for repair and resorption of furcation perforation, respectively. PR showed more accurate diagnostic (true positives + true negatives/total) in repair detection compared with resorption of furcation perforation. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PR is not adequate in detecting resorption progress after the treatment of furcation perforation, and we encourage the use of digital imaging when suspicious of a possible unsuccessful result after furcation perforation treatment.