Does endodontics influence radiological detection of external root resorption? an in vitro study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: External root resorption (ERR) has a multifactorial etiology and is difficult to diagnose, which means that is continues to be of research interest. This work mainly aims to determine whether external root resorption can be differentially detected in root-filled versus non-endodontically treated teeth using digital periapical radiography (DPR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: The Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies (CRIS) guidelines were followed throughout this study. This experiment highlights the preparation and generation of standardized synthetic teeth measured on three-dimensional records converted into Digital Imaging and Communication on Medicine (DICOM) file format. Twelve replicate maxillary incisors were randomized into two groups (G1) six non-endodontically treated, and (G2) six endodontically treated teeth. In both groups, actual tooth lengths of all specimens were measured and compared with measurements obtained using DPR and CBCT. Simulated ERR lesions [0.12, 0.18, 0.20 mm × 0.5 mm depth in the mesial, distal and palatal apical regions] were created progressively, radiographic images were recorded, and 24 DPRs and 96 CBCTs were obtained in total. Eight blinded, previously calibrated researchers made a total of 1920 measurements (using Horos Software). Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank post-hoc tests [Bonferroni correction in multiple comparison tests (p < 0.05)]. RESULTS: ICC values for intra- and inter-examiner agreement were appropriate. DPR overestimated ERR detection compared to the actual and CBCT measurements [Mean diff = 0.765 and 0.768, respectively]. CBCT diagnosis of ERR lesions in specimens without root canal treatment was significantly more accurate than DPR diagnoses on both non-endodontically and endodontically-treated specimens [p = 0.044; p = 0.037, respectively]. There was an 18.5% reduction in sensitivity in all DPR diagnoses made on endodontic teeth versus those made on non-endodontically treated teeth. For the smallest ERR lesions, this sensitivity was even more marked, with 27.8 and 25% less sensitivity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight that both CBCT and DPR are good diagnostic methods for ERR. Nevertheless, root canal filling material influences diagnostic capability in ERR. The clinical significance was that the presence of intracanal material reduces the detection and diagnosis of ERR by DPR in teeth with root canal treatment.