4.5 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography in detecting apical periodontitis using histopathological findings as a reference standard

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 417-426

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iej.12650

Keywords

apical periodontitis; cone beam computed tomography; histology; periapical radiography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To compare the diagnostic accuracy of periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting apical periodontitis (AP) using histopathological findings as a reference standard. Methodology Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from unclaimed bodies due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP by digital PR with a central view (DP group), digital PR combining central with 10 degrees mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (DPS group) and CBCT scans. All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR and CBCT were analysed using rater mean (n=5). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out. Results Sensitivity was 0.27, 0.38 and 0.89 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. CBCT had specificity and positive predictive value of 1.0 whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive value of 0.99. The negative predictive value was 0.39, 0.44 and 0.81 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.629 (DP), 0.688 (DPS), and 0.943 (CBCT). Conclusions All imaging techniques had similar specificity and positive predictive values. Additional parallax views increased the diagnostic accuracy of PR. CBCT had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy in detecting AP compared to PR, using human histopathological findings as a reference standard.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available