4.1 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of digitized periapical radiographs validated against micro-computed tomography scanning in evaluating orthodontically induced apical root resorption

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 116, Issue 5, Pages 467-472

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00559.x

Keywords

apical root resorption; digitized periapical radiographs; micro-CT scanner; orthodontic movement

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [3200-06480.01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to validate the use of digitized periapical radiographs in evaluating orthodontically induced apical root resorption against micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanning as a criterion standard test. In a standardized experimental protocol, 29 premolars in 16 subjects were tipped buccally for 8 wk. Nineteen contralateral premolars not subjected to orthodontic movement served as controls. Standardized periapical radiographs were taken before and after the experimental period (Rx method). These teeth were extracted and scanned using a micro-CT technique with a 9 mu m resolution. Two calibrated examiners assessed blindly the presence or absence of apical root resorption on digitized radiographs and three-dimensional reconstructions of the scans. Significant differences were detected between the orthodontically moved teeth and controls: 86% of the orthodontically moved teeth and 21% of the control teeth showed apical root resorption when using micro-CT as a validation method. A total of 55% of the experimental teeth and 5% of the control teeth showed resorption when assessed using Rx method. The Rx method showed a specificity of 78% and a sensitivity of 44%, which means that less than half of the cases with root resorption identified using a CT scanner were identified by radiography. Nearly all the orthodontically moved teeth showed apical root resorption. Apical root resorption may be underestimated when evaluated using digitized periapical radiographs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available