Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) produces undistorted three-dimensional information of the maxillofacial skeleton, including the teeth and their surrounding tissues with a lower effective radiation dose than computed tomography. The aim of this paper is to: (i) review the current literature on the applications and limitations of CBCT; (ii) make recommendations for the use of CBCT in Endodontics; (iii) highlight areas of further research of CBCT in Endodontics.

This Position Statement represents a consensus of an expert committee convened by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) on the use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Endodontics. This paper is an update of the ESE CBCT position statement which was published in 2014 (European Society of Endodontology 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12267). Recent review articles provide more detailed background information and the basis for this position statement. It is intended that this position statement will be updated at least every 4‐5 years to keep abreast of relevant research. The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians with evidence‐based guidance on the application of CBCT in Endodontics. Since 2014, there has been an increase in the number of clinical studies confirming the positive impact of CBCT on treatment planning, decision‐making when reviewing cases and reduced practitioner stress levels.

The use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis and/or management of endodontic problems is increasing and is reflected in the exponential rise in publications on this topic in the last two decades. The aim of this paper is to: (i) Review current literature on the endodontic applications of CBCT; (ii) Based on current evidence make recommendations for the use of CBCT in Endodontics; (iii) Highlight the areas in which more research is required.

No abstract

Within the tooth population studied, accuracy of identifying mesial root canal configuration was influenced greatly by the evaluation method and the type of anatomy. Detection of type I configurations in cleared teeth was significantly lower, whilst type II configurations were detected in all specimens by both methods. In mesial roots with variable anatomical configurations, neither CBCT nor clearing methods were accurate for detecting the actual root canal anatomy.