Evaluation of the accuracy values of cone-beam CT regarding apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Specialists need to know how accurate and effective each radiographic procedure is, and which ones can provide better images for bone resorption around the apical periodontitis. Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct the present study with the aim of evaluate the accuracy values of cone-beam CT regarding apical periodontitis. The PubMed, Embase, ISI, Scopus, and Medicine have been used to search articles over the last 15 years between 2005 and December 2020. Meta-analysis data with 95% confidence interval (CI), Random effect model, and restricted maximum-likelihood methods were calculated. Random effects were used to deal with potential heterogeneity and I2 showed heterogeneity. I2 values above 50% signified moderate-to-high heterogeneity. The meta-analysis has been evaluated with the statistical software Stata/MP v.16 (The fastest version of Stata). One hundred and fifty-eight studies were selected to review the abstracts, six papers met these crucial criteria to do a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of digital periapical radiography was 50% (ES 0.50; 95% CI 0.05, 0.95) and 83% (ES 0.83; 95% CI 0.52, 1.15), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of cone-beam computed tomographic was 95% (ES 0.95; 95% CI 0.80, 1.00) and 90% (ES 0.90; 95% CI 0.78, 1.03), respectively. In conclusion, CBCT imaging reports values with excellent accuracy vs digital periapical radiography.

Effect of different debonding techniques on shear bond strength and enamel cracks in simulated clinical set-ups.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between debonding forces and enamel cracks length change between different debonding techniques. METHODS: 80 extracted premolar teeth with intact buccal enamel were divided into five groups. In each group, enamel cracks were evaluated by stereomicroscope before and after debonding. All teeth were bonded with metal brackets by self-cure adhesive (3M, USA) and then debonded by bracket debonding plier, fixed on the UTM machine, through five methods based on location of plier on brackets: OGwing (occlusogingival), MDwing (mesiodistal), Oblique, OGbase (occlusogingival) and Cusp-base. RESULTS: Based on non-parametric distribution of data, there was no significant difference between groups in ARI and enamel cracks length change. The highest shear bond strength for debonding presented in OG base method (25.25 ± 8.4) and the difference was statistically significant (P-value = 0.029). There was no linear relationship between shear bond strength and cracks length change and also between ARI and cracks length change. CONCLUSION: Despite the lower cracks length change in Cusp-base method than other groups, there wasn't significant difference between debonding methods. Also the amount of debonding forces and ARI do not affect the changes of cracks length.