COMPARISON OF ORTHOPANTOMOGRAPHY AND CONE-BEAM COMPUTED

TOMOGRAPHY DATA IN ENDODONTICALLY TREATED TEETH

Ban Mohammed Jasim¹, Majida K. Al-Hashimi², Resha Jameel Abdulsaheb³

 

1 - AL-Erass University College, Department of Dentistry.

2 - Ashur University College, Department of Dentistry.

3 - Baghdad University, College of Dentistry. Iraq.

D

iagnosis, treatment plan and evaluation of endodontic treatment are done with the help of radiographs. Radiographic imaging is essentially two-dimensional imaging of a three-dimensional structure.

The purpose. of this research was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of linear measurement of gutta percha in teeth with root canal treatment and periapical area in both orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods. In this retrospective study, the collected sample consisted of 90 endodontically treated teeth; fifty teeth had single canal, 12 teeth with two canals, and 28 teeth with three canals. All images were randomly chosen from patient who visited the clinic of radiology, seeking different dental treatment. Each patient had orthopantomography and CBCT at the same time. Each image separately was evaluated by two examiners. The operator analyzed the linear measurement of each tooth with root canal treatment and periapical area in both orthopantomography and CBCT. The CBCT was evaluated in two cross sections with 0.5 mm thickness. The CBCT is evaluated with the corresponding orthopantomography. All the images were collected from the same device (SORDEX, CRANEX 3D) and analyzed by On Demand 3D software by using cross section view for CBCT and SCANORA software for image.

Results. It is notable that lesions on CBCT have higher values in comparison to OPTG but the standard deviation is approximately similar. Gutta percha on CBCT also had higher negative values and higher standard deviation than on OPTG. When the recorded values were compared between OPTG and CBCT with regard to lesions and gutta percha, a significant statistical difference was found for the lesions (P value of 0.000), while gutta percha showed a P value of 0.056. Lesions on CBCT had a higher value than on OPTG. Interestingly, comparisons between CBCT and OPTG for both BC and PC showed only one significant difference which is between CBCT and OPTG values for gutta percha of PC (P = 0.02) as CBCT values were negatively higher than on OPTG. Comparisons between the three canals with regard to CBCT and OPTG values yielded two significant differences. The first is related to MC canal with regard to gutta percha (P = 0.017) as higher negative values were noted on CBCT than OPTG. The second difference is related to DC canal also for gutta percha (P = 0.016) with higher negative values for CBCT. Comparisons for the three canals with regard to CBCT and OPTG showed three significant differences. The first is with regard to lesions of ML canal (P = 0.025) with lesions on CBCT having higher values than on OPTG. The second significant difference is in gutta percha of MB canals (P = 0.002) with higher negative values on CBCT than on OPTG. The last significant difference is in gutta percha of ML canal (P = 0.004) with higher negative values on CBCT than on OPTG.

Conclusion. CBCT scanning has been shown to be more accurate than digital radiographs in identifying the accuracy of linear measurements of periapical lesions and the length of gutta perch root canal fillings. The results of the present study showed the CBCT method has a higher diagnostic informative value in comparison with orthopantomography in the evaluation of teeth after endodontic treatment.

 

Keywords: endodontic, gutta percha, CBCT, orthopantomography, cone-beam computed tomography.

 

Corresponding author: Ban Mohammed Jasim, e-mail: Этот e-mail адрес защищен от спам-ботов, для его просмотра у Вас должен быть включен Javascript

For citation: Ban Mohammed Jasim, Majida K. Al-Hashimi, Resha Jameel Abdulsaheb. Compari-

son of orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography data in endodontically treated teeth. REJR 2023; 13(4):16-25. DOI: 10.21569/2222-7415-2023-13-4-16-25.

Received:        05.09.23 Accepted:       30.10.23