Accuracy of High- and Low-Resolution Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Scans in the Detection of Impacted Tooth-Induced External Root Resorption: An Ex-Vivo Study

  • Arash Dabbaghi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dental Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Sanaz Sharifi Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dental Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Masoud Esmaeili Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Keywords:
Root Resorption, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Diagnosis, Accuracy, Impacted Teeth

Abstract

Objectives: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is used in diagnostic situations, as well as tooth impaction and its complications. A possible sequela of tooth impaction is resorption of adjacent teeth, complicating the treatment plans. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of high- and low-resolution CBCT scans in the detection of external root resorptions (ERRs), caused by an adjacent impacted tooth in the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), mid-root, and apical areas.

Materials and Methods: Forty-five intact single-rooted teeth were divided into three groups of 15. Each group was dedicated to each zone of the root. Slight, moderate, and severe ERRs were formed, and CBCT scans were taken before and after the formation of ERRs. The diagnostic accuracy was assessed, and the Proportion test was used to compare the results.

Results: The statistical analyses of high- and low-resolution images showed a significant difference (P<0.05), which implies the higher accuracy of high-resolution images. The highest diagnostic accuracy among different zones was related to the mid-root, and the lowest was related to the apical zone. In terms of the size of ERRs, the diagnostic accuracy was the lowest for slight ERRs.

Conclusion: The most reliable and accurate diagnostic mode was found in high-resolution images, in the mid-root zone, and with severe ERRs. The lowest diagnostic accuracy was found in low-resolution images, in the apical zone, and with slight ERRs.

References

1. Liu DG, Zhang WL, Zhang ZY, Wu YT, Ma XC. Localization of impacted maxillary canines and observation of adjacent incisor resorption with cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Jan;105(1):91-8.
2. Tamimi D, ElSaid K. Cone beam computed tomography in the assessment of dental impactions. Semin Orthod. 2009 Mar;15(1):57-62.
3. Haney E, Gansky SA, Lee JS, Johnson E, Maki K, Miller AJ, et al. Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 May;137(5):590-7.
4. Oberoi S, Knueppel S. Three-dimensional assessment of impacted canines and root resorption using cone beam computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012 Feb;113(2):260-7.
5. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Souza PC, Willems G. In-vitro comparison of 2 cone-beam computed tomography systems and panoramic imaging for detecting simulated canine impaction-induced external root resorption in maxillary lateral incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Dec;136(6):764.e1-11.
6. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Feb;33(1):93-102.
7. Lermen CA, Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, da Silveira HL, Mazzola AA, de Figueiredo JA. Comparison between two tomographic sections in the diagnosis of external root resorption. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 May-Jun;18(3):303-7.
8. Liedke GS, da Silveira HE, da Silveira HL, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JA. Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod. 2009 Feb;35(2):233-5.
9. Ponder SN, Benavides E, Kapila S, Hatch NE. Quantification of external root resorption by low-vs high-resolution cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography: a volumetric and linear analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jan;143(1):77-91.
10. Shokri A, Mortazavi H, Salemi F, Javadian A, Bakhtiari H, Matlabi H. Diagnosis of simulated external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, PSP, and CBCT: a comparison study. Biomed J. 2013 Jan-Feb;36(1):18-22.
11. Yan B, Sun Z, Fields H, Wang L. Maxillary canine impaction increases root resorption risk of adjacent teeth: a problem of physical proximity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Dec;142(6):750-7.
12. Leach HA, Ireland AJ, Whaites EJ. Radiographic diagnosis of root resorption in relation to orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2001 Jan 13;190(1):16-22.
13. Kamburoğlu K, Kurşun Ş, Yüksel S, Öztaş B. Observer ability to detect ex vivo simulated internal or external cervical root resorption. J Endod. 2011 Feb;37(2):168-75.
14. Lyroudia KM, Dourou VI, Pantelidou OC, Labrianidis T, Pitas IK. Internal root resorption studied by radiography, stereomicroscope, scanning electron microscope and computerized 3D reconstructive method. Dent Traumatol. 2002 Jun;18(3):148-52.
15. Hamilton RS, Gutmann JL. Endodontic‐orthodontic relationships: a review of integrated treatment planning challenges. Int Endod J. 1999 Sep;32(5):343-60.
16. Trope M. Root resorption due to dental trauma. Endod Topics. 2002 Mar;1(1):79-100.
17. Bakland LK. Root resorption. Dent Clin North Am. 1992 Apr;36(2):491-507.
18. Otto RL. Early and unusual incisor resorption due to impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Oct;124(4):446-9.
19. Milberg DJ. Labially impacted maxillary canines causing severe root resorption of maxillary central incisors. Angle Orthod. 2006 Jan;76(1):173-6.
20. Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, Horner K, Mannocci F. The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography - an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J. 2009 Sep;42(9):831-8.
21. Eraso FE, Parks ET, Roberts WE, Hohlt WF, Ofner S. Density value means in the evaluation of external apical root resorption: an in vitro study for early detection in orthodontic case simulations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007 Mar;36(3):130-7.
22. Kamburoğlu K, Kursun S. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT images of different voxel resolutions used to detect simulated small internal resorption cavities. Int Endod J. 2010 Sep;43(9):798-807.
23. Westphalen VP, Gomes de Moraes I, Westphalen FH, Martins WD, Souza PH. Conventional and digital radiographic methods in the detection of simulated external root resorptions: a comparative study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004 Jul;33(4):233-5.
24. Neves FS, de Freitas DQ, Campos PS, de Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F. In vitro comparison of cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes for detection of simulated external root resorption. J Oral Sci. 2012Sep;54(3):219-25.
25. Estrela C, Bueno MR, De Alencar AH, Mattar R, Valladares Neto J, Azevedo BC, et al. Method to evaluate inflammatory root resorption by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2009 Nov;35(11):1491-7.
Published
2020-06-24
How to Cite
1.
Dabbaghi A, Sharifi S, Esmaeili M. Accuracy of High- and Low-Resolution Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Scans in the Detection of Impacted Tooth-Induced External Root Resorption: An Ex-Vivo Study. Front Dent. 16(6):429-435.
Section
Original Article