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:


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.