Resumo O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a influência dos artefatos de cimentos endodônticos na detecção de fratura radicular vertical (FRV) em tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC). Pré-molares e incisivos centrais foram divididos em cinco grupos diferentes: Controle, Pulp Canal Sealer, AH Plus, Sealer 26 e BC Sealer (n = 10, por grupo). As FRVs foram induzidas mecanicamente e os dentes inseridos em uma réplica da mandibula humana. Posteriormente, imagens de TCFC (Cranex 3Dx, Soredex, Tuusula, Finlândia) foram obtidas e dois observadores foram solicitados a identificar fratura radicular separadamente, o critério utilizado foi a análise visual. Tanto para pré-molares quanto para incisivos centrais, os coeficientes kappa de concordância intraobservador variaram de bom a excelente (K: 80% - 87%), e os valores de concordância interobservador variaram de regular a moderado (K: 30% - 35%). A seguir, a área sob a curva (AUC) dos valores da característica de operação do receptor (ROC) para FRVs destacou que o uso do cimento BC Sealer reduziu a capacidade dos observadores de discriminar FRVs em relação a outros cimentos endodônticos. Além disso, os valores de sensibilidade para pré-molares variaram de 20% a 60%, e a especificidade variou de 60% a 100%; enquanto os valores de sensibilidade para incisivos centrais variaram de 30% a 70%, e a especificidade variou de 70% a 100%. Em conclusão, os baixos valores de sensibilidade, principalmente para pré-molares, demonstraram uma dificuldade no diagnóstico de FRV. Além disso, o BC Sealer induziu significativamente mais artefatos de imagem do que outros cimentos. Esses resultados evidenciam que os cimentos endodônticos podem interferir no diagnóstico das FRVs.

Abstract The aim of this study was to compare the influence of endodontic sealers artifacts on the detection of vertical root fracture in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Premolars and central incisors were assigned into five different groups: Control, Pulp Canal Sealer, AH Plus, Sealer 26, and BC Sealer (n= 10, per group). VRFs were mechanically induced and the teeth were inserted into an image phantom. Subsequently, CBCT (Cranex 3Dx, Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) images were obtained and two observers were asked separately to identify root fracture, by visual analysis. For both premolar and central incisors, kappa coefficients of intraobserver agreement varied from good to excellent (K: 80% - 87%), and the values for interobserver agreement varied from fair to moderate (K: 30% - 35%). As follows, the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values for VRFs highlighted that the use of BC sealer reduced the observers’ ability to discriminate VRFs relative to other sealers. Moreover, sensitivity values for premolars teeth ranged from 20% to 60%, and specificity ranged from 60% to 100%; while sensitivity values for central incisors ranged from 30% to 70%, and specificity ranged from 70% to 100%. In conclusion, the low sensitivity values, mainly for premolars, demonstrated the difficulty in VRF diagnosis. Furthermore, BC Sealer induced significantly more imaging artifacts than other sealers. These results highlighting that endodontic sealers may interfere with the diagnosis of VRFs.

Abstract Objective To compare periapical radiograph (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures. Material and Methods Sixty incisor teeth (20 higid and 40 with root fracture) from dogs were inserted in 60 anterior alveolar sockets (40 higid and 20 with alveolar fracture) of 15 macerated canine maxillae. Each fractured socket had a root fractured tooth inserted in it. Afterwards, each maxilla was submitted to PR in two different vertical angulation incidences, and to CBCT imaging with a small field of view (FOV) and high-definition protocol. Images were randomized and posteriorly analyzed by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists two times, with a two-week interval between observations. Results Sensitivity and specificity values were good for root fractures for PR and CBCT. For alveolar fractures, sensitivity ranged from 0.10 to 0.90 for PR and from 0.50 to 0.65 for CBCT. Specificity for alveolar fractures showed lower results than for root fractures for PR and CBCT. Areas under the ROC curve showed good results for both PR and CBCT for root fractures. However, results were fair for both PR and CBCT for alveolar fractures. When submitted to repeated measures ANOVA tests, there was a statistically significant difference between PR and CBCT for root fractures. Root fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.90 to 0.93, and alveolar fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.30 to 0.57. Interobserver agreement results were substantial for root fractures and poor/fair for alveolar fractures (0.11 for PR and 0.30 for CBCT). Conclusion Periapical radiograph with two different vertical angulations may be considered an accurate method to detect root fractures. However, PR showed poorer results than CBCT for the diagnosis of alveolar fractures. When no fractures are diagnosed in PR and the patient describes pain symptoms, the subsequent exam of choice is CBCT.

The purpose of this study was to analyze four different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols to identify horizontal root fractures (HRF) in endodontically treated teeth, with or without the presence of a metallic post. Thirty extracted single-rooted human premolars were treated endodontically. Afterwards, an observer induced a horizontal fracture in 15 teeth. Each tooth was inserted in an empty mandibular socket and submitted to a computed tomography scan taken with and without the metallic post. The acquisition followed four different protocols, with different fields of view (FOV) and voxel sizes, as follows: FOV 6X16 cm/0.2 mm voxel; FOV 6X16 cm/0.25 mm voxel; FOV 8X8 cm/0.2 mm voxel; FOV 8X8 cm/0.25 mm voxel. Two observers checked all the acquisitions within a two-week interval, and the values of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and kappa were calculated. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values were better for the 8X8 cm/0.2 mm and 16X6 cm/0.25 mm protocols, ranging from 0.60 to 0.86 and 0.53 to 0.80, respectively. The intra- and interobserver concordance ranged from 0.65 to 0.72. The protocols where FOV and voxel were proportional showed better results. The 8x8 cm/0.2 mm protocol had the least interference from the metallic artifact. All four protocols showed a decline in values in the presence of the metallic artifact.