Detection of vertical root fractures by conventional radiographic examination and cone beam computed tomography - an in vitro analysis

• Published in: Dental traumatology 2013-02, Vol.29 (1), p.41-46
• Main Authors: da Silveira, Priscila Fernanda, Vizzotto, Mariana Boessio, Liedke, Gabriela Salatino, da Silveira, Heraldo Luis Dias, Montagner, Francisco, da Silveira, Heloísa Emília Dias
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Area Under Curve; cone beam computed tomography; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - statistics & numerical data; conventional radiograph; Dental Alloys - chemistry; Dentistry; Gutta-Percha - therapeutic use; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - statistics & numerical data; Post and Core Technique; Radiography, Dental - statistics & numerical data; ROC Curve; Root Canal Filling Materials - therapeutic use; Root Canal Obturation - methods; Root Canal Therapy; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tooth Fractures - diagnostic imaging; Tooth Root - injuries; Tooth, Nonvital - diagnostic imaging; vertical root fracture
• ISSN: 1600-4469; 1600-9657
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2012.01126.x

–  Objectives: This study compared the ability of conventional radiographic and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examinations to detect vertical root fractures (VRF) in teeth with or without root canal treatment and metallic posts. Furthermore, the influence of using different voxel sizes from CBCT images was assessed. Methodology: Sixty single‐rooted human teeth were randomly divided into two groups: experimental and control. Twenty teeth were endodontically prepared and obturated with gutta‐percha, twenty had a metallic postcemented after the filling, and twenty had no preparation. The teeth from the experimental group were fractured. All teeth were radiographed with three different horizontal angles, and after, CBCT images were acquired following three protocols in which the variation was the voxel resolution (0.4, 0.3, and 0.2 mm). Three calibrated examiners assessed the images. Results: Chi‐squared test showed no statistical difference among the images in detecting VRFs. The results of the diagnostic performance tests presented similar ability to detect VRFs when conventional radiographic examination was compared with 0.2 and 0.3‐voxel CBCTs scans, in roots without endodontic treatment and metallic post. Moreover, specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy findings were similar for both 0.2 and 0.3‐voxel resolution scans for teeth that are not root filled. However, it was observed that in teeth with root canal treatment and a post, the accuracy was higher when 0.2‐mm voxel resolution was used. Conclusion: The radiographic examination with horizontal angle variation should be encouraged as the first complementary approach to assess the presence of VRFs. If conventional imaging is not capable to provide adequate information, CBCT can be indicated if a root fracture is strongly suspected. The root condition should then guide the voxel resolution choice, selecting 0.3‐voxel for not root filled teeth and 0.2‐voxel for teeth with filling and/or a post.