Should Cavitation in Proximal Surfaces Be Reported in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Examination?

Aim: A clinical study was done to assess the clinical diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in detecting proximal cavitated carious lesions in order to determine whether cavitation should be reported when a CBCT examination is available. Materials and Methods: 79 adjacent proximal surfaces without restorations in permanent teeth were examined. Patients suspected to have carious lesions after a visual clinical and a bitewing examination participated in a CBCT examination (Kodak 9000 3D, 5 × 3.7 cm field of view, voxel size 0.07 mm). Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained according to the Helsinki Declaration. Radiographic assessment recording lesions with or without cavitation was performed by two observers in bitewings and CBCT sections. Orthodontic separators were placed interdentally between two lesion-suspected surfaces. The separator was removed after 3 days and the surfaces recorded as cavitated (yes/no), i.e. validated clinically. Differences between the two radiographic modalities (sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy) were estimated by analyzing the binary data in a generalized linear model. Results: For both observers, sensitivity was significantly higher for CBCT than for bitewings (average difference 33%, p < 0.001) while specificity was not significantly different between the methods (p = 0.19). The overall accuracy was also significantly higher for CBCT (p < 0.001). Conclusion: CBCT was more accurate in detecting cavitation in proximal surfaces than bitewing radiographs; therefore a CBCT examination performed for other clinical applications should also be assessed for proximal surface cavities in teeth without restorations, and when detected, this pathology must be part of the dentist's report.

[1]  A Wenzel,et al.  Cone beam CT image artefacts related to head motion simulated by a robot skull: visual characteristics and impact on image quality. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[2]  M. Frydenberg,et al.  Detection of cavitated approximal surfaces using cone beam CT and intraoral receptors. , 2013, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[3]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Reliability of Visual Examination, Fibre-Optic Transillumination, and Bite-Wing Radiography, and Reproducibility of Direct Visual Examination Following Tooth Separation for the Identification of Cavitated Carious Lesions in Contacting Approximal Surfaces , 1998, Caries Research.

[4]  E. Everett,et al.  Ex vivo comparison of Galileos cone beam CT and intraoral radiographs in detecting occlusal caries. , 2012, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[5]  N. Pitts,et al.  Temporary tooth separation with special reference to the diagnosis and preventive management of equivocal approximal carious lesions. , 1987, Quintessence international.

[6]  K. Araki,et al.  Evaluation of a limited cone-beam volumetric imaging system: comparison with film radiography in detecting incipient proximal caries. , 2007, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[7]  K. Kamburoğlu,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. , 2010, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[8]  土田 涼子 Evaluation of a limited cone-beam volumetric imaging system : comparison with film radiography in detecting incipient proximal caries , 2007 .

[9]  A. Wenzel,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography scans compared with intraoral image modalities for detection of caries lesions. , 2008, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[10]  J. Ludlow,et al.  Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. , 2008, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[11]  M. A. G. Silva,et al.  Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view. , 2008, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[12]  S. Brooks,et al.  Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. , 2006, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[13]  D. Elashoff,et al.  A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charge-coupled device sensors for detecting caries. , 2009, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[14]  A. Farman,et al.  What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? , 2008, Dental clinics of North America.

[15]  H. Gröndahl,et al.  Accuracy of Proximal Caries Depth Measurements: Comparison between Limited Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Storage Phosphor and Film Radiography , 2006, Caries Research.

[16]  N B Pitts,et al.  Clinical diagnosis of dental caries: a European perspective. , 2001, Journal of dental education.

[17]  E. Kidd,et al.  Clinical and radiographic diagnosis of occlusal caries: a study in vitro. , 1995, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[18]  E. Da,et al.  A comparative study of high-resolution cone beam computed tomography and charge-coupled device sensors for detecting caries , 2009 .

[19]  O. Fejerskov,et al.  What Constitutes Dental Caries? Histopathology of Carious Enamel and Dentin Related to the Action of Cariogenic Biofilms , 2004, Journal of dental research.

[20]  J. Epstein,et al.  Failure to diagnose and delayed diagnosis of cancer: medicolegal issues. , 2009, Journal of the American Dental Association.