! "
# $
%
&
'( )
) * +
, ) -. *
0 1 2 **
0 3 45 1 6 ***
0 72 8 96 *
*** 0 9 9 *****
* ! " # $%
** &' &
( ! " # $%
*** )* &' "
! " # $%
****
**** * &' %
! " # $
) : ; :
17 / 2 / 91 – B C ; : 11 / 6 / 91
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
#
, ) - ./) :
1 !
23$4 : 09111343432
E-mail: zahradalili@yahoo.com
A Comparison between Digital Panoramic View and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Images in Diagnosis of Apical Radiolucent Lesions
Zahra Dalili*#, Mehran Taramsari**, Ehsan Kazemnezhad***, Hamid Behboudi****, Somayeh Nemati*****
* Associate Professor, Dept of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
** Assistant Professor, Dept of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. *** Assistant Professor, Dept of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
**** Dentist
***** Assistant Professor, Dept of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Received: 6 May 2012; Accepted: 1 September 2012
Introduction: Panoramic radiography is used extensively in the field of dentistry as a screening method. In endodontic treatment , the diagnosis and evaluation of periapical area is very important. However, using advanced imaging such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has increased diagnostic ability, but it must be used precisely and in special condition. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic value of digital panoramic view and CBCT in diagnosis of apical lucent lesion.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional study, digital panoramic view and CBCT of 47 patients (573 apical portions
of root) who had referred to maxillofacial radiology clinic for maxillary and or mandibular CBCT procedures were assessed. All of the selected patients needed these images as their treatment protocol. According to order of CBCT (maxilla, mandible and both), the teeth of the same jaw in digital panoramic radiography by a maxillofacial radiologist were evaluated.
After data enterance, agreement, Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (positive and negative) were assessed totally and for each jaw separately with 95 percent confidence interval. 0.05 was established as a level of significant.
Results: Periapical radiolucency in 15.9% of apical areas in CBCT and in digital panoramic view in 4.2% of them was detected. Overall, sensitivity and specificity of digital panoramic view were 26.4% and 100% respectively. Sensitivity of panoramic view in diagnosis of periapical lucency in mandible was higher than maxilla. According to kappa analysis, the agreement level between panoramic and CBCT was assigned low (kappa=0.374).
Conclusion: Although panoramic is a routine screening method in field of dentistry, it is not accurate in diagnosis of the
presence of periapical lesions. This limitation in maxilla is more than mandible.
Key words: Cone beam computed tomography, digital panoramic, periapical lesion.
# ##
/ #01) ... (#%! ) * #+! !% , ! " # $% & '
2 0
(
E8 *F
8 :
!
"# $ .
&
' (
) *+,! (
-. / 0 1 . 2 3& 2 . !
& , 4 ! ! +5
+ + 6+ +7( *
(CBCT)
89 : ; < ) *,! '
0 =+ ( > ( 2< ? +@
+ . A +& + B +6# C D+
E-F *,! / @ ( F!
CBCT
; 6 G ) *,! 0 2 #
# .
B -:
D 6CB 6# C '
F! ( / @ (
CBCT
47 3 ) 573 , / . (
+FF*! + N5 + +5
O # (
? @ 2PQ ; R
CBCT
3 6Q D S '
2 < .
D+ P! - 3 D 3&
T ( ( F! .
CBCT
3 ? 5 U '
+& + + + +3&
O # )F* > ! / @ (
2 < ; R .
( ( - 6 ; + V7
' 'W+ ! 2 + .
(Sensitivity)
'
= (
(Specificity)
N5 ; R (
9 X @ ; R D - ? 5 & .
6 YC -0
& 05 / 0 4 .
! -:
CBCT
' 9 / 15 % / @ ( 2
/ 4 % 2 # 6 G + 0
+ ) *+,! `+ < / .
+N5 +7 +
E( 2 . 4
/ 26 % 0 = ( ( 100
% . 2 . 2 # ; 6 G ) *,!
0 / D
- , S
. -0 b
Kappa
E( D W !
CBCT
- c 6G )
374 / 0
(Kappa=
.
" :
D N "# $ D !( E( 5 ; 6 G Q( ) *,! d '
W+ < / 0
9 . D - , S 2 ( X D .
G E 8 , -:
! ! 5
6 7( * ' / @
' 6 G 0
/ .
P, , N@
/ / 1391 ( 36 / 3 4 : 300 f 293 .
8
! " # $% & '
(% ) .
+ ,- ( ./0 " 1!
2 ( ' 1! ) # $%&
3 42 !
5 ( 2 6 !
7 ! 8 "89 7
.
" /: .
( 9 ; & 6
< %& = ) " ! > ? @AB
C 8 =D
8 , . ) 1 (
6 (9 ;& 6 = H! = ) (%
; I
D J D ,K
. 6 L + ,- (
" , ! ( (& %D & " 2 8
M
+ % & ( B : & 2
! = ) ( 6 N,$& .
) 2 (
P ,8
# K Q2 R ! 9 ( (9 ! :
K # K 5
: K # ! !
; S 6 8 ( ! 3 R ! 9 CK
.
& =D ! ; /- ( 1! & 2
C
! %D & + %&
D = # .
) 3 (
; I 2 U 30 /- V 8N
& AN " 1!
5
" W
" + ,- ( !
& + ; X& ' Y 2 7' 0
) # $%& " % X .
) 1 ( = ) (%
( + ! (9 ;& 6 =8 !
; X& # ,,9 6 8U! "
W K ; S ( Z
%[ 1 ! (& (% 1 !
(@ . Lofthag-Hansen
+ 8
( ( ' Y \
= D ( S ]
! ( & 1!
,%D .
+ ( ' Y 6
'
X ( 9 6 " ' " ' " % 5
W 2 # $%& 1!
) & (& " , ! ,%
.
32 + 5 W ( &
( (%S !
5 , !
5 (& W
10
( % +
K ; .
)
4 (
Farman
1! W ; ) & (
CBCT
; % !
( Z ; D
. ( % 2 ( ' Y 6
X % & + ,- ( " ` ' %S # K # $% &
; & . ) 1 ( ; %
71 % (
1! ! = )
. 6 ,c8
84 % 93 % ( W CBCT
" ` ' %S
! = ) .
( ' Y 6 $, fD W2
CBCT
2 % P f ]!
+ 6 5
CBCT
!
3' & R % ;)
. 6
+ g ]I! W2 (9
; % B 4 - !
& I ;
. ) 3 (
Estrela
1! ( ' Y ( C 8
" 5
CBCT +
h ( 9
" % ;
$-5 ,%D . W ; & SZ
1! 55
/ 0 "
28 / 0 5
1!
5
/ 54 %
1!
" 8 / 27 %
K # ! ; &
. W2
fD 1 ! 96 %
1 ! ; ) ( 9 +
. ! ! ( " 54
/ 0 7 / 0 ;)
1 !
( lZX = ) (
2 !
" W
. ) 5 (
; & %,9 % N " 1!
- " 1! 2 ! 6K '2
( 9 K
! f[ .f& ! K
.
" #2 (9 (% 6 6% l
# % S # $% & 7' 0 " , ! + ,- ( % N " , /9
W2 ( 9 3 K + m' KAn
2 + g ! 1 ! (% " , ! CBCT
3 ) & .
6 ,c8
( ! 2 ]h ( 9 3 o & & 6
S,& ' 1!
" 5 ] ]Z
pq 9
K !
9 8%- + ( + ! .
B
( Z 5 Y] ( ' Y 6 ( '
+ #
" , /9 ( (9 8 # K
11 ! " ` '
r
# 8 ( B :
5
; ) & .
% "
4 N ;[B (9 8 ( /9 % N
CBCT "
6 5
( ;,/n8 6%K m l >/% = (
" , /9 # 9 ( B
5 K p % .
9q ( 42
(8 (9 ;&
+ ,- ( 1! ( [! ( 2 + 8 6
[ 2 B ,%K D (&
( [! . 2 ! " ,& + 8 \m Z ( ' Y
K . Rn& .SZ
(9 6 CBCT " 4 9 ( s
8 5
" + 8 3% S &
$ " t& ! "
" ` ' 1 %
4 - B ; ) & :
( B
K l [? ' .
/ #01) ... (#%! ) * #+! !% , ! " # $% & '
2 0
(
# 7% & t & ! " (Sordex, Finland, Helsinki)
Cranex D 1!
CBCT # 7% & t& ! New Tome
VG (QR SRL Company, Verona,Italy) # K ( [!
.
" 6%K ( ' Y (
.& , ; $ 9 )
1! 1 (.
Z + 8 ( %$ 2
CBCT
1! Multiplaner
A 1! = K ( 9
< 9 4 - B 2 & 5 , &
K l [? ( B
. : 1 4 K
= 4
" ( s -X 8 6&
CBCT K ;fu .
+ % &
( s -X
" CBCT
+ 5
8 + B
3%S & < & Universal
# 8K
m
K 2
6 + 2 1! &
5 ( ( 9
;,& '
l + 5;K B
;fL ; X-0
: 6 l $, ;
X-% K ( . 5# X- (
% + 7 ' U
(PDL) ; ) l
. +
' "
6
( " $! 4 - :
" 5 Z " : ( # (
U)
; m :
.
f 3[ v% ( #2 (h
5
#2 - & " + ,- ( ( 8 A & K
5 / 0 W A K .
( Z +
' "
(
( " $! ! 9 % S 5 9 A
' "
6 ( " $! ( A
K l [? %S .
% & ( ' Y 6 !
X 5 -X B
CBCT l
K (% . -X ( ;& 4 #
J 1
4 A SPSS C
( S 16 ( s A ' ! K
# t& ! 4 6 : A .
= /I! ( AN!
#
g ! . 2
Kappa 5 K # $% & wY & ( 9
+ A g !
6 -
0≤Kappa≤1
K . -" 5 + = 9 g ! # , $ :
-+ 7% Sf8 4 - ( 9 ;& A X]%& # ,
W g ! 2
,9 .
+ A 6 8
(f& I 3 " ; & SZ M
; & f- (9
% N " " , ! + + ;fL 8%Z 2
( !
+ ! ] 7 f- ( '
+ + " W
.
; ) & (9 7 D K
5 + A
" W x
M 8%Z 2 ;& f- (9
( ! 4 - " (N % + $,
Z '
.
7 f- (
7 W + ! ]
( Z ( + 6%K m ,9 "
' K .
A ' 2 7 2
5
fD W2
$, ;fL .
( ' Y 6 ; fL fD W2
f-;&
" ( N % + ;fL 8%Z 2
y I' 2 ( 9 CBCT
W2 ; fL A
( N % + $, 8%Z 2 f- A $, fD
y I' 2 (9 " CBCT
$, A .
A N ( 6 " (9 ;& 9q ( 42 % ) & ,
.
1! 1 :
>' 5 1! "
. p 5 1!
CBCT
2
+ 6 " . 5{ ! 1
CBCT
+ 2 "
!
Y] ( ' Y 6 5
573 ( Z ( '
K & .
( ! ;
;, & '
U
PPL 1 ! W
CBCT "
B % N 1
2 ;& # .
2 4 9 | #2 ( ' Y
2 % ( ' Y 5
/ 0 f %8 % & .
! " , ! 1 ! g !
' ;,& ' )
6% l +
U PDL (
/9 : (
)
B
3 ( " $! (
6 ) B 4 5 (
; ) 2
. .
" 1! W 9 g !
347 / 0 )
> g !
( 6 " 5 421
/ 0 ) ! p D
t& % ( =9 374 / 0 ) > ( 01 / 0 P< W A
K . ; fL fD W2 5 x 5; & SZ P ,8 (PPV)
$, fD W2
(NPV)
+ , 8 . 9q
2 2 4 9
; ) (f & I }
) B 6 .(
B 1 :
; ! ;,& '
'
+ 7 ' U %
1 ! W 2 # $%&
CBCT
! '
! :
459
1 / 80
;,& ' '
91 9 / 15
U
PPL
23 0 / 4
=9 573
0 / 100
>'
p
/ #01) ... (#%! ) * #+! !% , ! " # $% & ' 2 0 ( B 2 : ;
;,& ' !
'
U
PDL
" 1 ! W 2 # $%& % N ) OPG ( ' ! ! : 549 8 / 95
' ;,& ' 24 2 / 4 U PPL 0 0 / 0 =9 573 0 / 100 B 4 :
W ' 1 ! g ! &
% N "
CBCT + " CBCT OPG ~8B
$, ;fL
:
! : ! : !
0 / 4
14 0/0 0 4/0 14 ;fL 0
/ 96
335 83/4 291 12/6 44 $, 0
/ 100
349 83/4 291 16/6 58 =9
B
3 :
W ' 1 ! g ! &
% N "
CBCT CBCT OPG ~8B
$, ;fL
:
! : ! : !
4 / 4
24 0/0 0 4/4 24 ;fL 6
/ 95
526 83/4 459 12/2 67 $, 0
/ 100
550 83/4 459 16/6 91 =9
B 5 :
W ' 1 ! g ! &
% N "
CBCT
+ 6 " CBCT OPG ~8B
$, ;fL
:
! : ! : !
0 / 5
10 0/0 0 5/0 10 ;fL 0
/ 95
191 83/6 168 11/4 23 $, 0
/ 100
201 83/6 168 16/4 33 =9
B 6 :
D K
;,& ' 1 ! W2
% N " ' (S ]
CBCT
" ; & SZ
) + , 8 (/: 95 (% x ) + , 8 (/: 95
(% ;fL fD W2
) + , 8 (/: 95
(% $, fD W2
) + , 8 (/: 95 (% " ) 37 r 15 ( 6 / 24 ) 100 r 98 ( 0 / 100 ) 99 r 75 ( 0 / 97 ) 90 r 83 ( 0 / 8 / 86
6 " ) 48 r 18 ( 0 / 31 ) 100 r 97 ( 0 / 99 ) 100 r 99 ( 0 / 96 ) 92 r 82 ( 0 / 88 =9 ) 36 r 18 ( 4 / 26 ) 100 r 99 ( 0 / 100 ) 100 r 99 ( 0 / 100 ) 90 r 84 ( 0 / 3 / 87
HI ' Y ; 8B " ` '
+ A >/%
V K 20 ! 52 : + W 2 # $% & " %
+ 8 1!
. ) 7 6 (
: $! 6
= " (/8B 2
; 8B + f ;&
% & f89 5( ' Y ( [!
W
" % + $! 5 +
6 11 % 8- + KAn
5 wY & $!
+ 4 N ( (9 ( N!
6 8 2
>/% ~ B ; $- %,9 .
% %9
% & 2
m uH!
%D & 5 ! 9 ( v% ; = K (9 ;&
; •, S& # I ( ; ) 5#A ' ,
1! K . ) 8 ( ) K # = ( " +
P f ]! 50 r 30
! 6 2 %& C 2 :
; = ) ( .
! ( Z " ` ' V , 5
; & %,9 5( K ( 2 5 %& (% S
( ; )
A 8! )
D m u ( .
) 9 (
Lofthag-Hanseon
+ 8
) 4 (
( 9 +
32
2 46 (
K # !
CBCT ;S ! 42
2 46 ! .
+ ' Y
( 9
t] C B "h 9
!
t& ! CT
K # !
. ) 10 (
( ' Y Estrela
+ 8
) 5 (
+ ; %
# K 6 / 17 :
" 3 / 63 : CBCT ( 9
P f ]! = ) 4 & " "
! .
( ' Y %fS 6 ,h A
) 2 / 4
9 / 15 ( ) .
! $! 6 ,
" , ! ' CBCT
" , ! ( ;f S
"
$, ! + A 2 K !
6 (9 K " , 9 pq 9
( ' Y g ! (% Estrela
+ 8
) 5 ( K .
! " , ! g !
37 / 0
> g ! + A 6 (9
.
( ' Y 6% l
CBCT ~ B + ,- (
" %&
5 ; & SZ 4
/ 26
x 5 : 100
:
; fL fD W2
) 100
: ( # K (f& I ] ] 6 (9 K W A
t& ! Estrela
+ 8
) 5 ( ) . ! ! ( 8
/ 27 5 100 99
: ( ;& g ! .
$, fD W2
( ' Y
( ' Y 2 Esterla
% + 8
. Stavropoulous
Wenzel ) 11 ( + CBCT
; & SZ
; fL fD W2
2 !
= D % N =D
! - ,1
;& .
; & SZ + A 4
/ 26 % "
! 8%Z (9 ;& + \ ( ' Y ' 4 / 26 %
Z (9 2
(
B ( ;K
( m + %& + A 6
6 56 " 2 " !
.
! " , ! g !
'
> 6 " ( ;fS " !
2 g !
" > g ! ( 6 " p D ! t& % ; = /]! .
" " , ! ; & SZ P ,8
! % N " 2 " '
%89 6 .
5 x ] &
fD W2
$, ;fL f $% " % N "
.
3NZ =9 " 1!
" 6
# 1! "
8%Z m ' K
( Z tf! 0 %D & 6 2 n8 &
C A l (9
(
V 6 #x
"
2 C 6 " ;&
. B 6 8 ( ; & SZ ;[
"
6 2 " %
. ' Z ( 9 CBCT 6
( > /% ( (9 B +
& AN :
K .
;fL fD W2
(9 ;& + \ : :
S 8%Z
5
+ ,- ( ( 9 !
# + # K
;&
( P )
; & # .
( /9 ( + : m '
" ; l Y) + ! .
! P ,8 , 9 " ,
+ A " $,
/ #01) ... (#%! ) * #+! !% , ! " # $% & '
2 0
(
€ % gfY, (N % 6 (9 # ( ' Y pq 9 Estrela
+ 8
) 5 ( ;& .
Z 5
30 2 # $% & ; fL %9
CBCT
2 1! l
2 6 K '
6 K '
1! 2 %89
/ % 5 # ! 9 P %fS 6 & + 2 2
Z + & 15
r 4 "
) 5 ( l
K (% .
(9 ! 30 /- (%f'
CBCT 3
B ,9
;S 2 K ; $ !
( 9 A/
( Z + uH!
!X !
( Z & !
( 9 8 3
Lofthag-Hansen
+ 8
) 4 ( (% K # K + A .
; I 2
1! ( [! + g ]I! 6
CBCT + 2
% X
! "
( 8 9 .
+ • Z V 8N
5 (
Z B #x 1! 6%K
CBCT ; 8 A@ Z + 8 ;& %[ ;&
( ( 9 2 #x
( Z J D ` ' ! ;
8 K 5
(%
Z B ,%S + \ , /9
+ ( %
5 (& " , ! 2 CBCT
# $%& 6 ! ( [,! K # ,S
.
"
! " , 9 1!
;,& '
; & ; I
D ( " ; I K 6 V 8N
! 6 " 2 % 6K2 n8 & 8%Z ( Z
K .
8J *$
# 8K ( N ( + 2 €%, (' ] 6
1327
; fu ( [ KAn # ( %9 (9 ;&
;& # & .
(/ & ,
; 2
x 6 # 5
! ]! .
K (
1. Farman AG. Panoramic Radiology, Seminars on Maxillofacial Imaging and Interpretation. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2007. P. 133-8.
2. Lee SJ, Messer HH. Radiographic appearance of artificially prepared periapical confined to cancellous bone. Int Endod J 1986; 19(2): 64-72.
3. Paula-Silva FWG, Wu MK, Silva LAB, Leonardo MR, Wesselink PR. Accuracy of periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in diagnosing apical periodontitis using histopathological findings as a gold standard. J Endod 2009; 35(7): 1009-12.
4. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 103(1): 114-9.
5. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Leles CR, Azevedo B , Azedevo JR. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis. J Endod 2008; 34(3): 273-9. 6. Weiger R, Hitzler S, Hermle G, Lost C. Periapical status, quality of root canal fillings and estimated
endodontic treatment needs in an urban German population. Endod Dent Traumatol 1997; 13(2): 69-74. 7. Eriksen HM, Kikevang LL, Petersson K. Endodontic epidemiology and treatment outcome: General
considerations. Endod Topics J 2002; 2(1): 1-9.
8. Bender IB. Factors influencing radiographic appearance of bony lesions. J Endod 1982; 8(4): 161-70.
9. Molven O, Halse A, Fristad I. Long-term reliability and observer comparisons in the radiographic diagnosis of periapical disease. Int Endod J 2002; 35(2): 142-7.
10. Vevart P, Hecker H, Tillinger G. Detection of the apical lesion and the mandibular canal in conventional radiography and Computed Tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92(6): 682-8.
