Diagnostic accuracy of two cone-beam computed tomography systems for detection of strip perforation in the mesial root of mandibular molars

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia Pub Date : 2020-06-04 DOI:10.32067/GIE.2020.34.01.01
Vida Maseratt, Heshmatallah Shahraki Ebrahimi, E. Saberi, Arezoo Pirhaji, Niloofar Khosravil
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of two cone-beam computed tomography systems for detection of strip perforation in the mesial root of mandibular molars","authors":"Vida Maseratt, Heshmatallah Shahraki Ebrahimi, E. Saberi, Arezoo Pirhaji, Niloofar Khosravil","doi":"10.32067/GIE.2020.34.01.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems for detection of strip perforation in the mesiobuccal canal of mandibular molars after root canal treatment. \nMethodology: The curved mesiobuccal canals of mandibular first and second molars were instrumented as part of endodontic treatment. The canals were strip-perforated using #2 and #3 Gates-Glidden drills in distoaxial direction at 1 to 3 mm distance from the furcation. The canals were filled with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer with lateral compaction technique. The teeth were then mounted in dry bovine mandible and underwent CBCT using Acteon and NewTom CBCT systems. The CBCT scans were evaluated by two observers, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the two CBCT systems for detection of strip perforation were determined and compared. \nResults: The sensitivity and specificity for detection of strip perforation were 51.3% and 46.3% for Acteon, and 55% and 38.8% for NewTom CBCT system, respectively. The difference between the two CBCT systems for detection of strip perforation was not significant (Chi-square test, P>0.05). \nConclusions: The accuracy of Acteon and NewTom CBCT systems for detection of strip perforation is low, and no significant difference was noted between the two systems in this respect.","PeriodicalId":42221,"journal":{"name":"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32067/GIE.2020.34.01.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems for detection of strip perforation in the mesiobuccal canal of mandibular molars after root canal treatment. Methodology: The curved mesiobuccal canals of mandibular first and second molars were instrumented as part of endodontic treatment. The canals were strip-perforated using #2 and #3 Gates-Glidden drills in distoaxial direction at 1 to 3 mm distance from the furcation. The canals were filled with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer with lateral compaction technique. The teeth were then mounted in dry bovine mandible and underwent CBCT using Acteon and NewTom CBCT systems. The CBCT scans were evaluated by two observers, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the two CBCT systems for detection of strip perforation were determined and compared. Results: The sensitivity and specificity for detection of strip perforation were 51.3% and 46.3% for Acteon, and 55% and 38.8% for NewTom CBCT system, respectively. The difference between the two CBCT systems for detection of strip perforation was not significant (Chi-square test, P>0.05). Conclusions: The accuracy of Acteon and NewTom CBCT systems for detection of strip perforation is low, and no significant difference was noted between the two systems in this respect.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种锥束计算机断层扫描系统检测下颌磨牙近中根条状穿孔的诊断准确性
目的:比较两种锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)系统对根管治疗后下颌磨牙中颊管带状穿孔的诊断准确性。方法:对下颌第一磨牙和第二磨牙弯曲的中颊根管进行根管治疗。使用2号和3号Gates-Glidden钻头在离分叉1 - 3mm处沿双轴方向进行条形穿孔。采用侧边压实技术,用杜仲胶和AH26密封胶填充根管。用Acteon和NewTom两种CBCT系统将牙固定在牛的干下颌骨上。两名观察员对CBCT扫描结果进行评估,确定并比较两种CBCT系统检测带状穿孔的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性。结果:Acteon检测条状穿孔的灵敏度和特异性分别为51.3%和46.3%,NewTom CBCT检测条状穿孔的灵敏度和特异性分别为55%和38.8%。两种CBCT系统对条带穿孔的检测差异无统计学意义(χ 2检验,P>0.05)。结论:Acteon和NewTom CBCT系统对条带穿孔的检测准确率较低,两种系统在这方面没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia
Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia was founded in 1987 and is the official journal of the Italian Society of Endodontics (SIE). It is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles on clinical research and/or clinical methodology, case reports related to Endodontics. The Journal evaluates also contributes in restorative dentistry, dental traumatology, experimental pathophysiology, pharmacology and microbiology dealing with Endodontics.
期刊最新文献
Comparative efficacy of Depotphoresis and diode laser for reduction of microbial load and postoperative pain, and healing of periapical lesions: a randomized clinical trial Endodontics: clinical protocols on scientific basis Anatomical proximity of upper teeth and local factors associated with the thickness of the maxillary sinus membrane: a retrospective study A contemporary approach to treat necrotic immature teeth using different bioceramic materials Endodontic guides and ultrasonic tips for management of calcifications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1