The Diagnostic Efficacy of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Endodontics: A Systematic Review and Analysis by a Hierarchical Model of Efficacy

The diagnosis and management of nerve injury during endodontic treatment

“…For example the diagnosis of potential anatomical abnormalities such as mandibular accessory canals may require the use of computed tomography scans, such as cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), in order to enable the visualization of the area of interest in three dimensions (Rosen, 2014;Pogrel et al, 2011;Patel, 2009), and in order to enable the planning of a more adequate treatment approach (Rosen, 2014;. However, the decision whether to use CBCT scan should be justified on an individual basis Rosen et al, 2015).…”

What do we (do not) know about the use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics? A thematic series with a call for scientific evidence

“…The introduction of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging had significant effects on the daily practice of endodontics (Rosen et al 2017;Rosen et al 2015;Kumar et al 2015;AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement 2015;AAOMR and AAE 2010). It is generally accepted that CBCT should not be used routinely in endodontics due to its excessive radiation dose compared to intraoral radiography (Rosen et al 2015;AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement 2015;AAOMR and AAE 2010;Patel et al 2015).…”

“…It is generally accepted that CBCT should not be used routinely in endodontics due to its excessive radiation dose compared to intraoral radiography (Rosen et al 2015;AAE and AAOMR Joint Position Statement 2015;AAOMR and AAE 2010;Patel et al 2015). However, it seems that CBCT use expended to almost every daily endodontic procedure (Rosen et al 2017;Metska et al 2014;Liang et al 2013;Jeger et al 2012;Janner et al 2011;Ustun et al 2016).…”

“…The benefit of a diagnostic imaging should be estimated by its diagnostic efficacy that is "the probability of benefit to individuals from a system or test under ideal conditions of use" (Rosen et al 2015;Krupinski and Jiang 2008). A common misunderstanding is that a "good" diagnostic efficacy means providing remarkable images of sufficient quality (Rosen et al 2017;EUROPEAN-COMMISSION 2012;Fryback and Thornbury 1991).…”

“…In order to assess the ultimate benefit of an imaging modality, Fryback and Thornbury (1991) developed a diagnostic efficacy hierarchical model (Rosen et al 2015). It includes several levels of imaging efficacy that for simplicity can be categorized into: technical efficacy (considered as the inferior levels and assess the technical quality of the images or the diagnostic accuracy associated with interpretation of the images) and to clinical efficacy (considered as the superior levels and asses the efficacy of the evaluated imaging modality to support the practitioner's clinical decision making and to improve treatment outcomes) (Rosen et al 2017;Rosen et al 2015;Fryback and Thornbury 1991;Matzen and Wenzel 2014).…”