Premium
Influence of adjacent teeth restored with metal posts in the detection of simulated internal root resorption using CBCT
Author(s) -
GaêtaAraujo H.,
Nascimento E. H. L.,
OliveiraSantos N.,
Pinheiro M. C. R.,
CoelhoSilva F.,
OliveiraSantos C.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/iej.13348
Subject(s) - premolar , cone beam computed tomography , dentistry , root resorption , orthodontics , resorption , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , medicine , molar , computed tomography , materials science , radiology , biology , botany , pathology , genus
Aim To assess the influence of artefacts generated by metal posts on the detection of simulated internal root resorption (IRR) in adjacent teeth using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to verify the impact of metal artefact reduction (MAR) on these cases. Methodology CBCT images of 14 premolar teeth were acquired before and after IRR simulation using chemical and mechanical procedures, in an OP300 Maxio unit, with and without MAR. Each tooth was placed in the socket of a human mandible and scanned under three different conditions: (i) without adjacent teeth – control group; (ii) distal adjacent tooth restored with metal post; and (iii) with both adjacent teeth restored with metal post. Five oral radiologists scored the IRR detection using a 5‐point scale. Diagnostic values were obtained for the tested groups and compared using two‐way analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Results The presence of a single adjacent tooth restored with metal post did not significantly influence the diagnostic values for IRR detection ( P > 0.05). The presence of both adjacent teeth with metal posts, without MAR application, was associated with a significantly lower area under the ROC curve (Az) compared to the control ( P = 0.0182). In this case, the application of MAR increased Az, leading to nonsignificant differences from the control group and the group with one adjacent restored tooth ( P > 0.05). Sensitivity decreased significantly when two adjacent restored teeth were present, regardless of MAR application ( P = 0.0379). Specificity was not affected by the conditions tested ( P > 0.05). Conclusion CBCT detection of IRR was impaired by artefacts only when both adjacent teeth restored with metal posts were present. In such cases, activation of MAR improved the performance on this diagnostic task.