Effects of various cone-beam computed tomography settings on the detection of recurrent caries under restorations in extracted primary teeth

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the ex vivo diagnostic ability of 9 different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) settings in the detection of recurrent caries under amalgam restorations in primary teeth.Materials and MethodsFifty-two primary teeth were used. Twenty-six teeth had dentine caries and 26 teeth did not have dentine caries. Black class II cavities were prepared and restored with amalgam. In the 26 carious teeth, recurrent caries were left under restorations. The other 26 intact teeth that did not have caries served as controls. Teeth were imaged using a 100×90-mm field of view and a 0.2-mm voxel size with 9 different CBCT settings. Four observers assessed the images using a 5-point scale. Kappa values were calculated to assess observer agreement. CBCT settings were compared with the gold standard using a receiver operating characteristic analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) values for each setting were compared using the chi-square test, with a significance level of α=.05.ResultsIntraobserver kappa values ranged from 0.366 to 0.664 for observer 1, from 0.311 to 0.447 for observer 2, from 0.597 to 1.000 for observer 3, and from 0.869 to 1 for observer 4. Furthermore, interobserver kappa values among the observers ranged from 0.133 to 0.814 for the first reading and from 0.197 to 0.805 for the second reading. The highest AUC values were found for setting 5 (0.5916) and setting 3 (0.5886), and were not found to be statistically significant (P>.05).ConclusionVariations in tube voltage and tube current did not affect the detection of recurrent caries under amalgam restorations in primary teeth.

Potential impact of metal crowns at varying distances from a carious lesion on its detection on cone-beam computed tomography scans with several protocols

“…The influence of tube current (mA) on diagnosis remains a topic of debate within the dental literature. While some studies have found no significant effect on the identification of secondary caries beneath amalgam fillings in primary teeth, 21 others have noted diagnostic improvements in the detection of root fractures, especially when artifact-producing materials are present. 12 13 …”

Performance of different cone-beam computed tomography scan modes with and without metal artifact reduction in detection of recurrent dental caries under various restorative materials

“…Recurrent caries under different restorative materials are a major cause of the failure and replacement of restorations [ 1 , 2 ]. Although accurate diagnosis of these caries can lead to successful treatment outcomes, it remains a challenging step for clinicians.…”

“…Although accurate diagnosis of these caries can lead to successful treatment outcomes, it remains a challenging step for clinicians. To provide better detection, visual and radiographic examinations accompanied by other diagnostic methods play a crucial role in treatment planning [ 1 , 3 ]. For these purposes and considering the high prevalence of recurrent caries, periapical and bitewing radiographs are the most common imaging modalities in clinical dentistry.…”

Influence of Different Bioactive Tooth Colored Restorative Materials in Caries Detection Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

“…Recurrent caries is once in a while observed on occlusal surfaces of the teeth that those edges are effortlessly cleaned. Strikingly, around 50 to 60% of restorations are supplanted on account of a determination of recurrent caries [1][2][3][4][5][6].…”

“…The quick improvement of innovation has brought forth different advanced dental imaging modalities, including digital intraoral radiography and cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scanners. CBCT has made storming in maxillofacial imaging, encouraging the progress of dental determination from 2D to 3D pictures and extending the part of imaging from finding to imaging guidance of operative and surgical systems by utilization of outsider programming [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].…”