Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of horizontal root fractures: an in vitro study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) units with several intraoral radiography techniques for detecting horizontal root fractures.

Methods

The study material comprised 82 extracted human maxillary incisors without root fractures that had not undergone any root canal treatment. Root fractures were created in the horizontal plane in 31 teeth by a mechanical force using a hammer with the tooth placed on a soft foundation as described in a previous study. The teeth were divided into two groups: a control group with no fractures and a test group with fractures. These were randomized to the empty maxillary anterior sockets of a dry human maxilla. Each tooth was imaged at various vertical angles using each of the following modalities: a 3D Accuitomo 170 CBCT, a NewTom 3G CBCT, a VistaScan PSP, a CCD sensor, and conventional film. Specificity and sensitivity for assessing horizontal root fracture by each radiographic technique were calculated. Chi-square statistics were used to evaluate differences between modalities. Kappa statistics assessed the agreement between observers. Results were considered significant at P < 0.05.

Results

The kappa values for inter-observer agreement between observers ranged between 0.88 and 0.98 for the 3D Accuitomo 170, 0.82 and 0.91 for the NewTom 3G, and 0.61 and 0.72 for the different types of intraoral images. The diagnostic accuracy for detecting fracture lines in 3D Accuitomo 170 (0.93) was significantly higher than NewTom 3G (0.87), VistaScan (0.71), CCD (0.70), and CF (0.68).

Conclusions

3D Accuitomo 170 has the highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting horizontal root fracture among the 5 radiographic modalities examined. CBCT should be considered as the most reliable imaging modality of choice for the diagnosis of horizontal root fracture.

Clinical relevance

CBCT imaging offers the clear advantage over conventional imaging that traumatized teeth can be visualized in all three dimensions—especially the oro-facial dimension

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bornstein MM, Wölner-Hanssen AB, Sendi P, von Arx T (2009) Comparison of intraoral radiography and limited cone beam computed tomography for the assessment of root-fractured permanent teeth. Dent Traumatol 25:571–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Caliskan MK, Pehlivan Y (1996) Prognosis of root-fractured permanent incisors. Endod Dent Traumatol 12:129–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamburoğlu K, Ilker Cebeci AR, Gröndahl HG (2009) Effectiveness of limited cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of horizontal root fracture. Dent Traumatol 25:256–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hovland EJ (1992) Horizontal root fractures. Treatment and repair. Dent Clin North Am 36:509–525

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Poi WR, Manfrin TM, Holland R, Sonoda CK (2002) Repair characteristics of horizontal root fracture: a case report. Dent Traumatol 18:98–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Andreasen FM, Andreasen JO, Bayer T (1989) Prognosis of root fractured permanent incisors—prediction of healing modalities. Endod Dent Traumatol 5:11–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cvek M, Andreasen JO, Borum MK (2001) Healing of 208 intraalveolar root-fractures in patients aged 7–17 years. Dent Traumatol 17:53–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cvek M, Tsilingaridis G, Andreasen JO (2008) Survival of 534 incisors after intra-alveolar root fracture in patients aged 7–17 years. Dent Traumatol 24:379–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kositbowornchai S, Nuansakul R, Sikram S, Sinahawattana S, Saengmontri S (2001) Root fracture detection: a comparison of direct digital radiography with conventional radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 30:106–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Borelli P, Alibrandi P (1999) Unusual horizontal and vertical root fractures of maxillary molars: an 11-year follow-up. J Endod 25:136–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Flores MT, Andersson L, Andreasen JO, Bakland LK, Malmgren B, Barnett F et al (2007) Guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries. I Fractures and luxations of permanent teeth. Dent Traumatol 23:66–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andreasen FM, Andreasen JO (1994) Root fractures. In: Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM (eds) Textbook and color atlas of traumatic injuries to the teeth, 3rd edn. Munsksgaard, Copenhagen, pp 279–311

    Google Scholar 

  13. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Clinical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scarfe WC, Farman AG (2008) What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am 52:707–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. White SC, Pharoah MJ (2008) The evolution and application of dental maxillofacial imaging modalities. Dent Clin North Am 52:689–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel S, Dawood A, Whaites E, Pitt Ford T (2009) New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 1. Conventional and alternative radiographic systems. Int Endod J 42:447–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gunduz K, Avsever H, Orhan K, Çelenk P, Ozmen B et al (2013) Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of vertical root fractures: an in vitro study. Oral Radiology 1:6–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tanimoto H, Arai Y (2009) The effect of voxel size on image reconstruction in cone-beam computed tomography. Oral Radiol 25:149–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wenzel A, Kirkevang LL (2005) High resolution charge-coupled device sensor vs medium resolution photostimulable phosphor plate digital receptors for detection of root fractures in vitro. Dent Traumatol 21:32–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Majorana A, Pasini S, Bardellini E, Keller E (2002) Clinical and epidemiological study of traumatic root fractures. Dent Traumatol 18:77–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hashimoto K, Kawashima S, Kameoka S, Akiyama Y, Honjoya T, Ejima K et al (2005) High resolution charge-coupled device sensor vs. medium resolution photostimulable phosphor plate digital receptors for detection of root fractures in vitro. Dent Traumatol 21:32–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kamburoğlu K, Murat S, Yüksel SP, Cebeci AR, Horasan S (2010) Detection of vertical root fracture using cone-beam computerized tomography: an in vitro assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 109:e74–e81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Costa FF, Gaia BF, Umetsubo OS, Cavalcanti MG (2011) Detection of horizontal root fracture with small-volume cone-beam computed tomography in the presence and absence of intracanal metallic post. J Endod 37:1456–1459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Costa FF, Gaia BF, Umetsubo OS, Pinheiro LR, Tortamano IP, Cavalcanti MG (2012) Use of large-volume cone-beam computed tomography in identification and localization of horizontal root fracture in the presence and absence of intracanal metallic post. J Endod 38:856–859. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG (2009) Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent 634567. doi:10.1155/2009/634567

  26. Iikubo M, Kobayashi K, Mishima A, Shimoda S, Daimaruya T, Igarashi C, Imanaka M, Yuasa M, Sakamoto M, Sasano T (2009) Accuracy of intraoral radiography, multidetector helical CT, and limited cone-beam CT for the detection of horizontal tooth root fracture. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:e70–e74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Ekrish AA, Ekram MI, Al Faleh W, Al-Khader M, Al-Sadhan R (2012) The validity of different display monitors in the assessment of dental implant site dimensions in cone beam computed tomography images. Acta Odontol Scand. Nov 21. [Epub ahead of print]

  28. Ilgüy M, Dinçer S, Ilgüy D, Bayirli G (2009) Detection of artificial occlusal caries in a phosphor imaging plate system with two types of LCD monitors versus three different films. J Digit Imaging 22:242–249

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kutcher M, Kalathingal S, Ludlow J, Abreu M, Platin E (2006) The effect of lighting conditions on caries interpretation with a laptop computer in a clinical setting. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hellen-Halme K, Petersson A, Warfvinge G, Nilsson M (2008) Effect of ambient light and monitor brightness and contrast settings on the detection of approximal caries in digital radiographs: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:380–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lofthag-Hansen S, Thilander-Klang A, Ekestubbe A, Helmrot E, Grondahl K (2008) Calculating effective dose on a cone beam computed tomography device: 3D Accuitomo and 3D Accuitomo FPD. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 37:72–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ludlow JB, Davies-Ludlow LE, Brooks SL (2003) Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 32:229–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. National Radiological Protection Board. Occupational, Public and Medical Exposure. Documents of the NRPB. Didcot, UK: NRPB, 1993; 4.

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, GATA, Dentistry Center, Ankara, Turkey

    Hakan Avsever

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Kaan Gunduz

  3. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Near East University, Mersin 10, Turkey

    Kaan Orhan

  4. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    İsmail Uzun

  5. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pedodontics, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Bilal Ozmen

  6. Department of Statistics, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Erol Egrioglu

  7. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

    Muhammed Midilli

Authors
  1. Hakan Avsever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaan Gunduz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaan Orhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. İsmail Uzun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bilal Ozmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Erol Egrioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Muhammed Midilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hakan Avsever.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Avsever, H., Gunduz, K., Orhan, K. et al. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of horizontal root fractures: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Invest 18, 285–292 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0940-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0940-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation