Premium
Void detection in root fillings using intraoral analogue, intraoral digital and cone beam CT images
Author(s) -
Huybrechts B.,
Bud M.,
Bergmans L.,
Lambrechts P.,
Jacobs R.
Publication year - 2009
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/j.1365-2591.2009.01566.x
Subject(s) - cone beam computed tomography , materials science , void (composites) , root canal , computed tomography , dentistry , digital image analysis , radiography , digital imaging , digital image , biomedical engineering , orthodontics , medicine , image processing , composite material , computer science , radiology , artificial intelligence , computer vision , image (mathematics)
Aim To compare void detection in root fillings using different radiographic imaging techniques: intraoral analogue, intraoral digital and cone beam CT (CBCT) images and to assess factors influencing small void detection. Methodology Two straight root canals in canine teeth were prepared. Calibrated steel wires of five different diameters (200, 300, 350, 500, 800 μm) were inserted respectively in the canal after the injection of a sealer. To simulate filling voids of known dimensions, the wires were removed after the sealer had set. Each sample was imaged, using a Minray X‐ray tube (Soredex, Helsinki, Finland) at optimal clinical settings combined with Vistascan PSP (Dürr Dental, Bietigheim‐Bissingen, Germany), Digora Optime PSP (Soredex), Sigma CCD (Instrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland) and E‐speed films (Agfa‐Gevaert, Mortsel, Belgium). The teeth were also imaged using CBCT (3D Accuitomo, Morita, Japan). A generalized mixed model and anova analysis were used on the acquired data (Tukey–Kramer correction). Results There was no evidence that the factor ‘root level’ affected void detection in root fillings. ‘Void size’ was a main determining factor as all voids larger than 300 μm were determined with all techniques. For the smaller voids, there were significant differences between the 5 imaging techniques at different void sizes and different root levels. Conclusions Void size and imaging technique were main determining factors. Voids larger than 300 μm were determined with all imaging techniques. For small void detection, all digital intraoral techniques performed better than intraoral analogue and CBCT images.