İnternal kök rezorpsiyonu dğerlendirmesinde konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografinin tanısal performansı: Sistematik derleme

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 3 , 506 - 511 , 29.12.2025

Nuray Bağcı , Arda Büyüksungur , Mehmet Hakan Kurt

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1615782

https://izlik.org/JA63ZZ63RR

Abstract

Amaç: Bu sistematik derleme, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografinin (KIBT) internal kök rezorpsiyonunu (İKR) teşhis etmedeki tanısal performansını analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Sistematik derleme için, P.R.I.S.M.A. yönergelerini izleyen bir tanı testi doğruluk protokolü kullanıldı. 3 elektronik veri tabanında (PubMed, Web of Science ve Google Scholar) kapsamlı bir elektronik arama gerçekleştirildi. Bu veri tabanlarında aşağıdaki terimlerin kombinasyonları arandı: Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi, CBCT, mikro-BT, mikro-bilgisayarlı tomografi ve iç kök rezorpsiyonu. Uygunluk kriterleri, problem-müdahale-karşılaştırma-sonuçlar (PICO) ifadesiyle dizayn edildi ve metodolojik kalite QUADAS-2 ile değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Erişilen toplam 1821 makaleden, dahil etme kriterlerini karşılayan sekiz makale sistematik incelemeye dahil edildi. KIBT ile tanı için İKR duyarlılığı %57-63 ile %100 arasında değişirken, özgüllük %76 ile %100 arasındaydı. Periapikal radyografi ile tanı için İKR duyarlılığı %47-64 ile %74-86 arasında değişirken, özgüllük %73-77 ile %96 arasındaydı. Çalışmaların çoğunda yanlılık riski düşüktü ve uygulanabilirlik endişeleri yüksekti.

Sonuçlar: Mevcut sistematik derleme, İKR tanısı için KIBT’ın tanı performansının yeterli olduğunu göstermektedir. KIBT görüntülerinin İKR tespitinde periapikal radyografiden daha iyi performans gösterdiği gözlemlenmiştir.

Keywords

tanı , konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi , CBCT , internal kök rezorpsiyonu

Project Number

122C190

Diagnostic Performance of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography to Evaluate in Vitro Internal Root Resorption: A Systematic Review

https://izlik.org/JA63ZZ63RR

Abstract

Purpose: The systematic review aims to analyze the diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to the diagnose of internal root resorption (IRR).

Material and method: For the systematic review, a diagnostic test accuracy protocol was used following P.R.I.S.M.A. guidelines. A comprehensive electronic search of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) was performed. These databases were searched combinations of the following terms: Cone Beam computed Tomography, CBCT, micro-CT, micro-computed tomography, and internal root resorption. The eligibility criteria were designed problem-intervention-comparison-outcomes (PICO) statement, and methodological quality was assessed by QUADAS-2.

Results: Eight articles, which met inclusion criteria, were included from a total of 1821 articles in the systematic review. For diagnosis with CBCT IRR sensitivity ranged from 57-63% to 100%, while specificity was between 76% and 100%. For diagnosis with periapical radiography IRR sensitivity was ranged from 47-64% to 74-86%, while specificity was between 73-77% and 96%. In the majority of studies, the risk of bias was low, and applicability concerns were high.
Conclusion: The present systematic review suggests that the diagnostic performance of CBCT is sufficient for the diagnosis of IRR. It was observed that CBCT images performed better than periapical radiography in the detection of IRR.

Keywords

diagnosis , cone-beam computed tomography , CBCT , internal root resorption

Supporting Institution

Tübitak

Project Number

122C190

Thanks

This article was created by benefiting from TÜBİTAK-2218-Domestic Postdoctoral Research Scholarship Program (Project No: 122C190). However, all responsibility for the publication belongs to the owner of the article. Financial support received from TÜBİTAK does not mean that the content of the article is scientifically approved by TÜBİTAK

References

• 1. Patel S, Ford TP. Is the resorption external or internal? Dent Update. 2007; 34(4): 218-229.
• 2. Fuss Z, Tsesis I, Lin S. Root resorption–diagnosis, classification and treatment choices based on stimulation factors. Dent Traumatol. 2003;19 (4): 175-182.
• 3. Gabor C, Tam E, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Prevalence of internal inflammatory root resorption J Endod. 2012; 38 (1): 24-27.
• 4. Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, Horner K, Mannocci F. The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography-an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(9): 831-838.
• 5. Kamburoğlu K, Tsesis I, Kfir A, Kaffe I. Diagnosis of artificially induced external root resorption using conventional intraoral film radiography, CCD, and PSP: an ex vivo study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106(6): 885-891.
• 6. American Association of Endodontists; American Acadamey of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiography. AAE and AAOMR joint position statement. Use of cone-beam-computed tomography in endodontics. Pa Dent J (Harrisb). 201; 78(1): 37-39.
• 7. Lund H, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG. Cone beam computed tomography for assessment of root length and marginal bone level during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3): 466-473.
• 8. Bromberg N and Brizuela M. Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2023.
• 9. Estrela C, Bueno MR, De Alencar AHG, Mattar R, Neto JV, Azevedo BC, Estrela CRDA. Method to evaluate inflammatory root resorption by using cone beam computed tomography J Endod. 2009; 35(11): 1491-1497.
• 10. Sönmez G, Koç C, Kamburoğlu K. Accuracy of linear and volumetric measurements of artificial ERR cavities by using CBCT images obtained at 4 different voxel sizes and measured by using 4 different software: an ex vivo research. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2018; 47(8): 20170325.
• 11. Kamburoğlu K, Kurşun Ş, Yüksel S, Öztaş B. Observer ability to detect ex vivo simulated internal or external cervical root resorption. J Endod. 2011; 37(29: 168-175.
• 12. Lima T, Gamba TO, Zaia AA, Soares AJ. Evaluation of cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in the diagnosis of root resorption. Australian Dent J. 2016; 61(4): 425-431.
• 13. Madani Z, Moudi E, Bijani A, Mahmoudi E. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in internal root resorption. Iranian Endod J. 2016; 11(1): 51.
• 14. Da Silveira P, Fontana M, Oliveira H, Vizzotto M, Montagner F, Silveira. CBCT‐based volume of simulated root resorption–influence of FOV and voxel size. Int Endod J. 2015; 48 (10): 959-965.
• 15. McInnes MD, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Hooft L. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. Jama. 2018; 319(4): 388-396.
• 16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surgery. 2021; 88: 105906.
• 17. Pollock A and Berge E. How to do a systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2018; 13(2): 138-156
• 18. Ren H, Chen J, Deng F, Zheng L, Liu X, Dong Y. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography for detecting simulated apical root resorption. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83(2): 189-195.
• 19. Kamburoğlu K and Kursun S. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT images of different voxel resolutions used to detect simulated small internal resorption cavities. Int Endod J. 2010; 43(9): 798-807.
• 20. Khojastepour L, Moazami F, Babaei M, Forghani M. Assessment of root perforation within simulated internal resorption cavities using cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2015; 41(9): 1520-1523.
• 21. Mahmoudi E, Madani Z, Moudi E, Bijani A, Hashemian HB, Solati S. Diagnostic accuracy of high resolution cone-beam computed tomography and standard mode cone-beam computed tomography in internal root resorption. Iranian Endod J. 2019; 14(3): 211.
• 22. Liedke GS, da Silveira HED, da Silveira HLD, Dutra V, de Figueiredo JAP. Influence of voxel size in the diagnostic ability of cone beam tomography to evaluate simulated external root resorption. J Endod. 2009; 35(2): 233-235.
• 23. Azeredo F, de Menezes LM, Enciso R, Weissheimer A, de Oliveira RB: Computed gray levels in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144(1): 147-155.
• 24. Baena-de la Iglesia T, Yanez-Vico RM, Iglesias-Linares A. Diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography to diagnose in vivo/in vitro root resorption: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evidence-Based Dent Practice. 2022; 101803.