Reproducibility and criterion validity of two radiographic techniques for variations in mandibular premolar compared with CBCT technique

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.2300

Keywords:

Reproducibility, Validity, Bicuspid

Abstract

Introduction: Considering that the existence of anatomical variations causes endodontic treatment failures, therefore it is important to diagnose them. This study aimed to determine the reproducibility and criterion validity of phosphor plate radiographs and sensor-based radiovisiography to identify anatomical variations detected by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in lower premolars. Materials and Methods: 140 premolars images were obtained by CBCT, radiographs and radiovisiography. Independent interpretation was performed by two endodontists to evaluate the Vertucci classification and ramifications. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were determined. Sensitivity, specificity and areas under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) were calculated using CBCT as the gold standard. Results: Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility was higher for radiography. For Vertucci type I, radiography showed higher sensitivity (94.7%), specificity (64.9%) and AUC (0.795) than radiovisiography (89.3%, 62.2% and 0.757, respectively), similarly for type V (radiography at 69.2%, 93% and 0.8111; radiovisiography at 50%, 84.2% and 0.671, respectively). None of the techniques contributed to the diagnosis of type III (AUC < 0.5). Ramifications were infrequent (2.9%) with a low level of detection (sensitivity at 25% for radiography and 0% for radiovisiography). Discussion: This is the first study to evaluate the reproducibility and validity of these two radiographic techniques compared with CBCT for the detection of anatomical variations in teeth. Conclusions: Phosphor plate radiography showed higher reproducibility and validity for the diagnosis of Vertucci types I and V, which were the most frequent premolar variations found. This is a dissertation for the Master’s degree in Dentistry available in the repository of the Universidad Santo Tomas, Bucaramanga campus.

How to cite this article: Rincón-Rodriguez Martha Liliana, Martínez-Vega Ruth Aralí, Duarte Martha Lucely, Moreno Monsalve Jaime Omar. Reproducibilidad y validez de criterio de dos técnicas radiográficas para variaciones de premolares mandibulares comparadas con CBCT. Revista Cuidarte. 2022;13(1):e2300. http://dx.doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.2300     

Author Biographies

Martha Liliana Rincón Rodriguez, Universidad Santo Tomás (USTA)

Universidad Santo Tomás (USTA), Bucaramanga, Colombia.

Ruth Aralí Martínez-Vega, Universidad de Santander (UDES)

Universidad de Santander (UDES), Bucaramanga, Colombia

Martha Lucely Duarte Monsalve , Universidad Santo Tomás (USTA)

Universidad Santo Tomás (USTA), Bucaramanga, Colombia

Jaime Omar Moreno Monsalve, Universidad Santo Tomás (USTA)

Universidad Santo Tomás (USTA), Bucaramanga, Colombia

References

Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the mandibular anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 1974; 89(2):369-371. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1974.0391

Ahmed HMA, Versiani MA, De-Deus G, Dummer PMH. A new system for classifying root and root canal morphology. Int Endod J. 2017; 50(8):761-770. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12685

Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Shemesh H, Roig M, Lemberg K. Cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics - a review. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(1):3-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12270

Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Villas-Boas MH, Cavenago BC, Duarte MH, Versiani MA. Morphologic micro-computed tomography analysis of mandibular premolars with three root canals. J Endod 2013;39(9):1130-1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.02.007

Versiani MA, Ordinola-Zapata R, Keleş A, Alcin H, Bramante CM, Pécora JD, et al. Middle mesial canals in mandibular first molars: A micro-CT study in different populations. Arch Oral Biol. 2016; 61:130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.10.020

Zheng Q-, Wang Y, Zhou X-, Wang Q, Zheng G-, Huang D-. A cone-beam computed tomography study of maxillary first permanent molar root and canal morphology in a Chinese population. J Endod. 2010;36(9):1480-1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.018

Abramovitch K, Rice DD. Basic principles of cone beam computed tomography. Dent Clin North Am. 2014; 58 (3):463-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2014.03.002

Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Impact of voxel size variation on CBCT-based diagnostic outcome in dentistry: a systematic review. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(4):813-820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9562-7

Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):203-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12051

Yamamoto K, Ueno K, Seo K, Shinohara D. Development of dento‐maxillofacial cone beam X‐ray computed tomography system. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003; 6(s1):160-162. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.249.x

Raudales Diaz I. Imágenes Diagnosticas: Conceptos y generalidades. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Méd. 2014, 35-43. http://www.bvs.hn/RFCM/pdf/2014/pdf/RFCMVol11-1-2014-6.pdf

Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1984; 58(5):589-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(84)90085-9

Khedmat S, Assadian H, Saravani AA. Root Canal Morphology of the Mandibular First Premolars in an Iranian Population Using Cross-sections and Radiography. J Endod. 2010;36(2):214-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.002

Vertucci FJ. Root canal morphology and its relationship to endodontic procedures. Endod Topics. 2005; 10(1):3-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00129.x

Zillich R, Dowson J. Root canal morphology of mandibular first and second premolars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1973;36 (5):738-744. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(73)90147-3

Zhang D, Chen J, Lan G, Li M, An J, Wen X, et al. The root canal morphology in mandibular first premolars: a comparative evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography and micro-computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21 (4):1007-1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1852-x

Velmurugan N, Sandhya R. Root canal morphology of mandibular first premolars in an Indian population: a laboratory study. Int Endod J. 2009; 42 (1):54-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01494.x

Alfonso-Rodríguez CA, Acosta-Monzón EV, López-Marín DA, Lancheros-Bonilla S, Moreno-Abello GC, Tovar ME. Description of the root canal system of mandibular first premolars in a colombian population. Oral Science Int. 2014;11 (1):35-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1348-8643(13)00025-6

Gulabivala K, Aung TH, Alavi A, Ng Y. Root and canal morphology of Burmese mandibular molars. Int Endod J. 2001;34 (5):359-370. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00399.x

Zhang D, Chen J, Lan G, Li M, An J, Wen X, et al. The root canal morphology in mandibular first premolars: a comparative evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography and micro-computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21 (4):1007-1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1852-x

Ricucci D, Siqueira JF. Fate of the Tissue in Lateral Canals and Apical Ramifications in Response to Pathologic Conditions and Treatment Procedures. J Endod. 2010;36 (1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.038

Pineda F, Kuttler Y. Mesiodistal and buccolingual roentgenographic investigation of 7,275 root canals. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol. 1972;33 (1):101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(72)90214-9

Çalişkan MK, Pehlivan Y, Sepetçioğlu F, Türkün M, Tuncer SŞ. Root canal morphology of human permanent teeth in a Turkish population. J Endod. 1995; 21 (4):200-204.25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80566-2

Trope M, Elfenbein L, Tronstad L. Mandibular premolars with more than one root canal in different race groups. J Endod. 1986;12 (8):343-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(86)80035-8

Von Arx T, Janner SF, Hänni S, Bornstein MM..Evaluation of New Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Criteria for Radiographic Healing Evaluation after Apical Surgery: Assessment of Repeatability and Reproducibility. J Endod. 2016; 42 (2):236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.11.018

Bagis N, Kolsuz ME, Kursun S, Orhan K. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0046-2

Dutra KL, Hass L, Porporatti AL, Flores-Mir C, Nascimento Santos J, Mezzomo LA, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography and Conventional Radiography on Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Endod. 2016; 42(3):356-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.015

Published

2022-03-30

How to Cite

1.
Rincón Rodriguez ML, Martínez-Vega RA, Duarte Monsalve ML, Moreno Monsalve JO. Reproducibility and criterion validity of two radiographic techniques for variations in mandibular premolar compared with CBCT technique. Revista Cuidarte [Internet]. 2022 Mar. 30 [cited 2024 Dec. 21];13(1). Available from: https://revistas.udes.edu.co/cuidarte/article/view/2300

Issue

Section

Investigation Article

Categories

Altmetrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)