Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
10.3390/diagnostics14070766
Title: | Comparative Analysis of Examination Methods for Periapical Lesion Diagnostics : Assessing Cone-Beam Computer Tomography, Ultrasound, and Periapical Radiography |
Authors: | Kārkle, Aleksandra Slaidiņa, Anda Zolovs, Maksims Vaškevica, Anete Meistere, Dita Bokvalde, Zanda Neimane, Laura Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health Department of Prosthetic Dentistry Statistics Unit |
Keywords: | cone-beam computer tomography radiographs;ultrasonography;apical surgery;endodontics;periapical lesion;periapical X-ray;3.1 Basic medicine;3.2 Clinical medicine;1.1. Scientific article indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus database |
Issue Date: | Apr-2024 |
Citation: | Kārkle , A , Slaidiņa , A , Zolovs , M , Vaškevica , A , Meistere , D , Bokvalde , Z & Neimane , L 2024 , ' Comparative Analysis of Examination Methods for Periapical Lesion Diagnostics : Assessing Cone-Beam Computer Tomography, Ultrasound, and Periapical Radiography ' , Diagnostics , vol. 14 , no. 7 , 766 . https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14070766 |
Abstract: | Introduction: Periapical lesions of teeth are typically evaluated using periapical X-rays (PA) or cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT); however, ultrasound imaging (US) can also be used to detect bone defects. A comparative analysis is necessary to establish the diagnostic accuracy of US for the detection of periapical lesions in comparison with PA and CBCT. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the measurement precision of US against PA and CBCT in detecting periapical lesions. Methods: This study included 43 maxillary and mandibular teeth with periapical lesions. All teeth were examined clinically, radiographically, and ultrasonographically. Observers evaluated and measured the periapical lesions on CBCT, PA, and US images. Results: The comparison of lesion size showed that it differs significantly between the different methods of examination. A statistically significant difference was found between CBCT and US (mean difference = 0.99 mm, 95% CI [0.43–1.55]), as well as between CBCT and PA (mean difference = 0.61 mm, 95% CI [0.17–1.05]). No difference was found between the US and PA methods (p = 0.193). Conclusion: US cannot replace PA radiography in detecting pathologies but it can accurately measure and characterize periapical lesions with minimal radiation exposure. CBCT is the most precise and radiation-intensive method so it should only be used for complex cases. |
Description: | Publisher Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. |
DOI: | 10.3390/diagnostics14070766 |
ISSN: | 2075-4418 |
Appears in Collections: | Research outputs from Pure / Zinātniskās darbības rezultāti no ZDIS Pure |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
Comparative_Analysis_of_Examination_Methods.pdf | 2.86 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.