Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Two- and tridimensional analysis of periapical repair after endodontic surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate repair after endodontic surgery using two- and tridimensional imaging methods.

Materials and methods

Periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) were performed before the surgeries and after 48 h (baseline), 4 months, and 8 months. The area (square millimeters) of periapical lesions in CBCT and in radiographs was compared regarding the percentage of repair. In the CBCT, multiple areas were converted to volume. Repeated-measures analyses and paired t tests (α = 0.05) were used to compare the methods. Correlation coefficients were calculated between the periods of evaluation within the CBCT volumetric analysis. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the methods, based on the 95 % limits of agreement for the difference of the means.

Results

Baseline showed a larger lesion volume (192.54 mm3) than 4-month (79.79 mm3) and 8-month (47.51 mm3) periods. No differences were found in the percentage of repair in the first 4 months and after 8 months. The volumetric analysis showed a higher percentage of repair when the first and last 4 months were compared. No differences were found in the percentage of repair by area in the CBCTs. Repair of 73 % was obtained after 8 months. Similar results were observed by the Bland-Altman agreement analyses.

Conclusions

The percentage of repair varied after 8 months, when lower values were obtained by volumetric evaluation.

Clinical relevance

Considering the outcome at follow-up periods over 4 months, tridimensional evaluation by CBCT is more capable of determining the absence of periapical bone repair than conventional two-dimensional radiographs. Therefore, the use of CBCT would be suggested only for more complex cases with slower evolution of repair or for the association of factors that make prognosis difficult after surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lindeboom JA, Frenken JW, Kroon FH, van den Akker HP (2005) A comparative prospective randomized clinical study of MTA and IRM as root-end filling materials in single-rooted teeth in endodontic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 100:495–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwartz-Arad D, Yarom N, Lustig JP, Kaffe I (2003) A retrospective radiographic study of root-end surgery with amalgam and intermediate restorative material. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 96:472–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tawil PZ, Trope M, Curran AE, Caplan DJ, Kirakozova A, Duggan DJ et al (2009) Periapical microsurgery: an in vivo evaluation of endodontic root-end filling materials. J Endod 35:357–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carvalho FB, Gonçalves M, Tanomaru-Filho M (2007) Evaluation of chronic periapical lesions by digital subtraction radiography by using Adobe Photoshop CS: a technical report. J Endod 33:493–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pitt Ford TR (1984) Radiographic detection of periapical lesions in dogs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 57:662–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Velvart P, Hecker H, Tillinger G (2001) Detection of the apical lesion and mandibular canal in conventional radiography and computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92:682–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwarz MS, Rothman SL, Rhodes ML, Chafetz N (1987) Computed tomography: part I. Preoperative assessment of the mandible for endosseous implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2:137–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bender IB (1997) Factors influencing the radiographic appearance of bony lesions. J Endod 23:5–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shahbazian M, Vandewoude C, Wyatt J, Jacobs R (2013) Comparative assessment of panoramic radiography and CBCT imaging for radiodiagnostics in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Investig 18:293–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sabour S, Dastjerdi EV, Moezizadeh M (2013) Accuracy of peri-implant bone thickness and validity of assessing bone augmentation material using cone beam computed tomography-is this correct? Clin Oral Investig 17:1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liang YH, Li G, Shemesh H, Wesselink PR, Wu MK (2012) The association between complete absence of post-treatment periapical lesion and quality of root canal filling. Clin Oral Investig 16:1619–1626

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hedesiu M, Baciut M, Baciut G, Nackaerts O, Jacobs R (2012) Comparison of cone beam CT device and field of view for the detection of simulated periapical bone lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:548–552

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carvalho FB, Gonçalves PS, Lima RK, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Rasquin LC, Tanomaru-Filho M (2011) Use of cone-beam tomography and digital subtraction radiography for diagnosis and evaluation of traumatized teeth treated with endodontic surgery and MTA. A case report. Dent Traumatol 23. doi:10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01092.x

  14. Christiansen R, Kirkevang LL, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A (2009) Periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the periapical bone defect 1 week and 12 months after root-end resection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 38:531–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Paula-Silva FW, Santamaria M Jr, Leonardo MR, Consolaro A, da Silva LA (2009) Cone-beam computerized tomographic, radiographic, and histologic evaluation of periapical repair in dogs' post-endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:796–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Avsever H, Gunduz K, Orhan K, Uzun I, Ozmen B, Egrioglu E, Midilli M (2013) Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of horizontal root fractures: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 18:285–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kambungton J, Janhom A, Prapayasatok S, Pongsiriwet S (2012) Assessment of vertical root fractures using three imaging modalities: cone beam CT, intraoral digital radiography and film. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:91–95

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suebnukarn S, Rhienmora P, Haddawy P (2012) The use of cone-beam computed tomography and virtual reality simulation for pre-surgical practice in endodontic microsurgery. Int Endod J 45:627–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stavropoulos A, Wenzel A (2007) Accuracy of cone beam dental CT, intraoral digital and conventional film radiography for the detection of periapical lesions. an ex vivo study in pig jaws. Clin Oral Investig 11:101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG (2007) Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 103:114–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahlowalia MS, Patel S, Anwar HM, Cama G, Austin RS, Wilson R et al (2012) Accuracy of CBCT for volumetric measurement of simulated periapical lesions. Int Endod J 46:538–546. doi:10.1111/iej.12023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ivekovic S, McIntyre GT, Gillgrass T, Thomson DA, Menhinick A, Mossey PA (2012) Validation of the volumetric measurement of a simulated maxillary alveolar bone defect using cone-beam computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 50:e115–e120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Souza EM, Bretas RT, Cenci MS, Maia-Filho EM, Bonetti-Filho I (2008) Periapical radiographs overestimate root canal wall thickness during post space preparation. Int Endod J 41:658–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Petersson A, Axelsson S, Davidson T, Frisk F, Hakeberg M, Kvist T et al (2012) Radiological diagnosis of periapical bone tissue lesions in endodontics: a systematic review. Int Endod J 45:783–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Agbaje JO, Jacobs R, Maes F, Michiels K, van Steenberghe D (2007) Volumetric analysis of extraction sockets using cone beam computed tomography: a pilot study on ex vivo jaw bone. J Clin Periodontol 34:985–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two measures of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eratalay K, Demiralp B, Akincibay H, Tözüm TF (2004) Localized edentulous ridge augmentation with upside down osteotomy prior to implant placement. Dent Traumatol 20:300–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tanomaru-Filho M, Jorge EG, Duarte MA, Goncalves M, Guerreiro- Tanomaru JM (2009) Comparative radiographic and histological analyses of periapical lesion development. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:442–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jorge EG, Tanomaru-Filho M, Gonçalves M, Tanomaru JMG (2008) Detection of periapical lesion development by conventional radiography or computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:e56–e61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ozen T, Kamburoğlu K, Cebeci AR, Yüksel SP, Paksoy CS (2009) Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using 2 different dental cone-beam computerized tomography units, an intraoral digital sensor, and conventional film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107:426–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Scarfe WC, Farmman AG, Sukovic P (2006) Advantages of cone beam CT. J Can Dent Assoc 72:75–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peretz B, Kaffe I, Amir E (2009) Digital images obtained with a digital camera are not associated with a loss of critical information–a preliminary study. Br Dent J 206:268–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zapata RO, Bramante CM, Duarte MH, Ramos LMPS, Fernandes LMPSR, Camargo EJ et al (2011) The influence of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiographic evaluation on the assessment of periapical bone destruction in dog's teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112:272–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Molven O, Halse A, Grung B (1996) Incomplete healing (scar tissue) after periapical surgery—radiographic findings 8 to 12 years after treatment. J Endod 22:264–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Grimard BA, Hoidal MJ, Mills MP, Mellonig JT, Nummikoski PV, Mealey BL (2009) Comparison of clinical, periapical radiograph, and cone-beam volume tomography measurement techniques for assessing bone level changes following regenerative periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 80:48–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bender IB, Seltzer S (1961) Roentenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone I. J Am Dent Assoc 62:152–160

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bender IB, Seltzer S (1961) Roentenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone II. J Am Dent Assoc 62:708–716

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pauls V, Trott JR (1966) A radiological study of experimentally produced lesions in bone. Dent Pract 16:254–258

    Google Scholar 

  39. AAE & AAOMR (2011) Use of cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics Joint Position Statement of the American Association of Endodontists and the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 111:234–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Esposito SA, Huybrechts B, Slagmolen P, Cotti E, Coucke W, Pauwels R, Lambrechts P, Jacobs R (2013) A novel method to estimate the volume of bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Endod 39:1111–1115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Araraquara School of Dentistry, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil

    Mário Tanomaru-FIlho, Érica G. Jorge, Juliane M. Guerreiro-Tanomaru, José Mauricio S. Reis & Marcelo Gonçalves

  2. Department of Dentistry and Oral Radiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Rubens Spin-Neto

Authors
  1. Mário Tanomaru-FIlho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Érica G. Jorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juliane M. Guerreiro-Tanomaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José Mauricio S. Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rubens Spin-Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcelo Gonçalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mário Tanomaru-FIlho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tanomaru-FIlho, M., Jorge, É.G., Guerreiro-Tanomaru, J.M. et al. Two- and tridimensional analysis of periapical repair after endodontic surgery. Clin Oral Invest 19, 17–25 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1225-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1225-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation