Influence of endodontic sealers artifacts in the detection of vertical root fractures

Abstract The aim of this study was to compare the influence of endodontic sealers artifacts on the detection of vertical root fracture in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Premolars and central incisors were assigned into five different groups: Control, Pulp Canal Sealer, AH Plus, Sealer 26, and BC Sealer (n= 10, per group). VRFs were mechanically induced and the teeth were inserted into an image phantom. Subsequently, CBCT (Cranex 3Dx, Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) images were obtained and two observers were asked separately to identify root fracture, by visual analysis. For both premolar and central incisors, kappa coefficients of intraobserver agreement varied from good to excellent (K: 80% - 87%), and the values for interobserver agreement varied from fair to moderate (K: 30% - 35%). As follows, the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values for VRFs highlighted that the use of BC sealer reduced the observers' ability to discriminate VRFs relative to other sealers. Moreover, sensitivity values for premolars teeth ranged from 20% to 60%, and specificity ranged from 60% to 100%; while sensitivity values for central incisors ranged from 30% to 70%, and specificity ranged from 70% to 100%. In conclusion, the low sensitivity values, mainly for premolars, demonstrated the difficulty in VRF diagnosis. Furthermore, BC Sealer induced significantly more imaging artifacts than other sealers. These results highlighting that endodontic sealers may interfere with the diagnosis of VRFs.

Resumo O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a influência dos artefatos de cimentos endodônticos na detecção de fratura radicular vertical (FRV) em tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC). Pré-molares e incisivos centrais foram divididos em cinco grupos diferentes: Controle, Pulp Canal Sealer, AH Plus, Sealer 26 e BC Sealer (n = 10, por grupo). As FRVs foram induzidas mecanicamente e os dentes inseridos em uma réplica da mandibula humana. Posteriormente, imagens de TCFC (Cranex 3Dx, Soredex, Tuusula, Finlândia) foram obtidas e dois observadores foram solicitados a identificar fratura radicular separadamente, o critério utilizado foi a análise visual. Tanto para pré-molares quanto para incisivos centrais, os coeficientes kappa de concordância intraobservador variaram de bom a excelente (K: 80% - 87%), e os valores de concordância interobservador variaram de regular a moderado (K: 30% - 35%). A seguir, a área sob a curva (AUC) dos valores da característica de operação do receptor (ROC) para FRVs destacou que o uso do cimento BC Sealer reduziu a capacidade dos observadores de discriminar FRVs em relação a outros cimentos endodônticos. Além disso, os valores de sensibilidade para pré-molares variaram de 20% a 60%, e a especificidade variou de 60% a 100%; enquanto os valores de sensibilidade para incisivos centrais variaram de 30% a 70%, e a especificidade variou de 70% a 100%. Em conclusão, os baixos valores de sensibilidade, principalmente para pré-molares, demonstraram uma dificuldade no diagnóstico de FRV. Além disso, o BC Sealer induziu significativamente mais artefatos de imagem do que outros cimentos. Esses resultados evidenciam que os cimentos endodônticos podem interferir no diagnóstico das FRVs.

Influência de diferentes materiais obturadores endodônticos em imagens de TCFC: uma avaliação in vitro / Influence of different root canal obturation materials in CBCT imaging: an in vitro evaluation

Objetivo: O presente estudo avaliou a influência de materiais obturadores endodônticos na produção de artefato de imagens de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC), por meio da análise de densidade de imagem em incisivos centrais e dentes pré-molares unirradiculares. Métodos: Os dentes foram submetidos a instrumentação endodôntica e divididos em cinco grupos: um grupo controle (sem preenchimento endodôntico) e quatro grupos teste, cada um preenchido por um material obturador endodôntico diferente (PulpCanal Sealer, AHPlus, Sealer26 e BCSealer). Após a aquisição da TCFC, as imagens foram avaliadas para determinar variações de tons de cinza nos três terços da raiz (análise objetiva). A segunda análise (subjetiva) comparou o grupo controle com dois dos grupos teste, em um processo randomizado. Resultados: Na análise objetiva, o Sealer26 e o BCSealer mostraram diferença estatística para valores mínimos, em comparação com outros materiais obturadores endodônticos, para dentes anteriores e posteriores. Para valores máximos, apenas o grupo controle diferiu estatisticamente dos grupos teste. Ao comparar os valores dos pré-molares e dos incisivos centrais em tons cinza pelo teste de Kruskal-Wallis, foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente significativa para os valores mínimos. Na análise subjetiva, para dentes anteriores e posteriores, o PulpCanal Sealer foi o material mais frequentemente apontado pelos observadores como aquele que produziu mais interferência de artefato. Conclusões: Os materiais obturadores endodônticos nos dentes posteriores apresentaram comportamento semelhante; somente o PulpCanal Sealer no terço apical apresentou diferenças estatísticas em relação aos demais grupos. Para os dentes anteriores, o BCSealer apresentou valores mínimos maiores em relação aos outros materiais obturadores endodônticos, o que poderia representar maior interferência do artefato (AU).

Objective: This study evaluated the influence of canal obturation materials in the production of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images artifact, by means of image density analysis and comparison between four materials in central incisors and monoradicular premolar teeth. Materials and Methods: The teeth were submitted to endodontic instrumentation and divided into 5 groups: one control group (no endodontic filling) and four test groups each one filled by a different endodontic sealer (PulpCanal Sealer, AHPlus, Sealer26 and BCSealer). After CBCT scanning, the images were assessed to determine grayscale variations in three root thirds (objective analysis). The second (subjective) analysis compared the control group with two of the test groups in a randomized process. Results: In the objective analysis, Sealer26 and BCSealer showed statistical difference for minimum values, in comparison with another sealers, for both anterior and posterior teeth. For maximum values, only control group differed statistically from test groups. When comparing premolars and central incisors grayscale values by ANOVA analysis, a statistically significant difference was found mainly for minimum values. At the subjective analysis, for both anterior and posterior teeth, PulpCanal Sealer was the filling most frequently appointed by the observers as the one that produced more artifact interference. Conclusion: Endodontic fillings at posterior teeth performed similar behavior. Only PulpCanal Sealer on apical third presented higher maximum values in relation to others groups, which could represent more white brands. For anterior teeth, BC Sealer performed higher minimum values in relation to other endodontic fillings, which could represent more dark bands (AU).

Diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures: an in vitro study comparing CBCT imaging with periapical radiographs

Abstract Objective To compare periapical radiograph (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures. Material and Methods Sixty incisor teeth (20 higid and 40 with root fracture) from dogs were inserted in 60 anterior alveolar sockets (40 higid and 20 with alveolar fracture) of 15 macerated canine maxillae. Each fractured socket had a root fractured tooth inserted in it. Afterwards, each maxilla was submitted to PR in two different vertical angulation incidences, and to CBCT imaging with a small field of view (FOV) and high-definition protocol. Images were randomized and posteriorly analyzed by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists two times, with a two-week interval between observations. Results Sensitivity and specificity values were good for root fractures for PR and CBCT. For alveolar fractures, sensitivity ranged from 0.10 to 0.90 for PR and from 0.50 to 0.65 for CBCT. Specificity for alveolar fractures showed lower results than for root fractures for PR and CBCT. Areas under the ROC curve showed good results for both PR and CBCT for root fractures. However, results were fair for both PR and CBCT for alveolar fractures. When submitted to repeated measures ANOVA tests, there was a statistically significant difference between PR and CBCT for root fractures. Root fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.90 to 0.93, and alveolar fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.30 to 0.57. Interobserver agreement results were substantial for root fractures and poor/fair for alveolar fractures (0.11 for PR and 0.30 for CBCT). Conclusion Periapical radiograph with two different vertical angulations may be considered an accurate method to detect root fractures. However, PR showed poorer results than CBCT for the diagnosis of alveolar fractures. When no fractures are diagnosed in PR and the patient describes pain symptoms, the subsequent exam of choice is CBCT.

Detection of horizontal root fracture using four different protocols of cone-beam computed tomography

The purpose of this study was to analyze four different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols to identify horizontal root fractures (HRF) in endodontically treated teeth, with or without the presence of a metallic post. Thirty extracted single-rooted human premolars were treated endodontically. Afterwards, an observer induced a horizontal fracture in 15 teeth. Each tooth was inserted in an empty mandibular socket and submitted to a computed tomography scan taken with and without the metallic post. The acquisition followed four different protocols, with different fields of view (FOV) and voxel sizes, as follows: FOV 6X16 cm/0.2 mm voxel; FOV 6X16 cm/0.25 mm voxel; FOV 8X8 cm/0.2 mm voxel; FOV 8X8 cm/0.25 mm voxel. Two observers checked all the acquisitions within a two-week interval, and the values of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and kappa were calculated. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values were better for the 8X8 cm/0.2 mm and 16X6 cm/0.25 mm protocols, ranging from 0.60 to 0.86 and 0.53 to 0.80, respectively. The intra- and interobserver concordance ranged from 0.65 to 0.72. The protocols where FOV and voxel were proportional showed better results. The 8x8 cm/0.2 mm protocol had the least interference from the metallic artifact. All four protocols showed a decline in values in the presence of the metallic artifact.