The impact of different voxels and exposure parameters of CBCT for the assessment of external root resorptions: A phantom study

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the different voxel sizes and imaging parameters of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) on the determination of external root resorption (ERR). ERRs were created in coronal, middle and apical regions. Depths (0.62-0.73 mm) and diameters (0.68-0.81 mm) of ERRs were measured using a digital calliper. Images were obtained in 0.125, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3 and 0.4 mm 3 voxel sizes and at different currents. Data were analysed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests at a level of P < 0.05. There was a difference between the parameters in determining the size of the ERR in coronal and middle regions (P < 0.05), but there was no difference in the apical region (P > 0.05). The change in current and exposure time did not make a difference in determining the dimensions of the ERRs (P > 0.05). Some voxel dimensions were more reliable in determining the depth and diameter of ERR in the coronal and middle region.

Influence of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Voxel Sizes in the Detection of Chemically Induced External Root Resorptions

“…Only when ERR is detected in the initial stage can the affected tooth be treated by repairing the resorption cavity with no pulpal injury. The detection of ERR in the later stage unfavorably alters the prognosis and might result in root canal treatment or tooth extraction [ 11 , 26 ]. Some researchers have thought of using ERR markers in saliva and gingival cervical fluid as an alternative to traditional methods because they thought that classical radiography methods were insufficient to diagnose ERR in the early stage.…”

“…Conversely, Ponder et al [ 33 ] reported that a voxel size of 0.2 mm 3 was more accurate than one of 0.4 mm 3 to detect the different sizes (1 mm and 1.8 mm) of ERR cavities. Goller-Bulut and Ugur-Aydin [ 26 ] also reported that decreased voxel size gave more accurate results in middle and coronal region ERR measurements. However, the authors did not find a significant difference in voxel sizes for the diameter and depth of the apical ERRs.…”

“…However, the authors did not find a significant difference in voxel sizes for the diameter and depth of the apical ERRs. The differences in the abovementioned results might be due to different ERR locations and dimensions, different CBCT machines, voxel size, observer experience, and performance [ 26 ]. In the present study, we did not find a statistically significant difference between voxel sizes of 100 μm and 150 μm in diagnosing different ERR defects.…”

Negligible tooth resorptions after anterior open bite treatment using skeletal anchorage with miniplates

“…Although this voxel size is not classified as high resolution, studies about root resorption found no statistic differences when smaller voxels were used, particularly when resorption is in the apical third of the root. 25 , 26 …”

Cone beam computed tomography for the diagnosis of external root resorption associated with orthodontic treatment: A review.

“…Only a proportion of patients may benefit from a change in the treatment plan as a consequence of ERR, and therefore, the evidence-based indications for the use of CBCT for diagnosis are currently limited to particular cases ( 19 ). Consequently, the decision as to whether to use high-resolution, radiation-dose CBCT protocols to diagnose a clinically irrelevant amount of ERR should be based on sound assessment of the risk/benefit ratio for the patient ( 6,19,45 ).…”