Comparative Analysis of Examination Methods for Periapical Lesion Diagnostics: Assessing Cone-Beam Computer Tomography, Ultrasound, and Periapical Radiography.

apical surgery cone-beam computer tomography radiographs endodontics periapical X-ray periapical lesion ultrasonography

Journal

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 04 03 2024
revised: 27 03 2024
accepted: 02 04 2024
medline: 13 4 2024
pubmed: 13 4 2024
entrez: 13 4 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Periapical lesions of teeth are typically evaluated using periapical X-rays (PA) or cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT); however, ultrasound imaging (US) can also be used to detect bone defects. A comparative analysis is necessary to establish the diagnostic accuracy of US for the detection of periapical lesions in comparison with PA and CBCT. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the measurement precision of US against PA and CBCT in detecting periapical lesions. This study included 43 maxillary and mandibular teeth with periapical lesions. All teeth were examined clinically, radiographically, and ultrasonographically. Observers evaluated and measured the periapical lesions on CBCT, PA, and US images. The comparison of lesion size showed that it differs significantly between the different methods of examination. A statistically significant difference was found between CBCT and US (mean difference = 0.99 mm, 95% CI [0.43-1.55]), as well as between CBCT and PA (mean difference = 0.61 mm, 95% CI [0.17-1.05]). No difference was found between the US and PA methods ( US cannot replace PA radiography in detecting pathologies but it can accurately measure and characterize periapical lesions with minimal radiation exposure. CBCT is the most precise and radiation-intensive method so it should only be used for complex cases.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38611679
pii: diagnostics14070766
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14070766
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Aleksandra Karkle (A)

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
RSU Institute of Stomatology, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.

Anda Slaidina (A)

RSU Institute of Stomatology, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.

Maksims Zolovs (M)

Statistics Unit, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
Institute of Life Sciences and Technology, Daugavpils University, LV-5401 Daugavpils, Latvia.

Anete Vaskevica (A)

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
RSU Institute of Stomatology, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.

Dita Meistere (D)

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.

Zanda Bokvalde (Z)

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
RSU Institute of Stomatology, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.

Laura Neimane (L)

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
RSU Institute of Stomatology, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.

Classifications MeSH